IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
zh0r4 said:
The October 13, 2022 interview when RA said he was gone by 1:30pm was videotaped and they have it (p. 109, p. 112 FM). My understanding is that the first interview when he came forward to give a tip, there is no record of, and I believe this is the interview they claim his time was different. The main section about the timeline discrepancies is p. 105-118 (FM).

JMO.
Click to expand...

You seem to refer to the FM often and take it as fact. Yes, it has been stated that it is mostly truthful. Having said that, I think most of us would understand that things have been intentionally left out that point to RA being guilty.

The following statement comes from the American Bar Association:

"Lawyers must be honest, but they do not have to be truthful. A criminal defense lawyer, for example, in zealously defending a client, has no obligation to actively present the truth. Counsel may not deliberately mislead the court, but has no obligation to tell the defendant’s whole story."

The FM should not be seen as the end all, be all center of truth.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/december-2019/_truthiness_-and-professional-responsibility/#:~:text=Lawyers%20must%20be%20honest%2C%20but%20they%20do%20not%20have%20to,tell%20the%20defendant's%20whole%20story.
 
mrjitty said:
Interesting they haven't discovered anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is considering they are ready for a January Trial according to them. I've always said that was a bunch of bull and reading this Motion by the State to Compel Discovery, they haven't provided them with anything in regards to witnesses, experts, or anything.

MOO
 
FrostedGlass said:
I'll start at the end of your post: I'm open to being swayed.

The muddy/bloody issue is pretty clear in my mind.
From the RL affidavit, we know this (don't we?):


So, when (IF) he was described by SC as being muddy (and bloody), I'm thinking she meant his clothing was that way also.
I'm pretty sure all LE involved are aware of RL's affidavit. IMO, regardless of Liggett omitting the word "clothing", the judge would have taken it that way. If Liggett personally added in the word 'bloody', that's a problem.

I'd love to read SC's interview.
I'm really curious how a jacket goes from tan/muddy to blue/muddy/bloody.

All MOO
Click to expand...
That's my issue with it as well. The FM and the PCA cannot be correct on the issue of what the witness saw, can they?? If someone can think of some plausible way that the tan / light coloured jacket became blue according to the same witness, pls help me out here! In terms of muddy and bloody, I want more information! Was his face muddy and bloody? Or just his clothes? If the jacket was blue or dark in color, what made her think it was blood? I'm asking because someone way more observant than me upthread pointed out that a dark color jacket wouldn't show blood so well and I realized, they're right! It would prob look more like mud!
 
Emma Peel said:
Me too.
But, IMO this is a timely filing, given Gull's last laundry list of decisions.
And, there may be moving parts we're not aware of.
e.g.
- Perhaps Weineke (RA's appellate attorney) supported this motion's prep - so it's ready for the Appellate.
- We can see that the D likely needed time to have a personal visit with Allen.
- And the parties may have been further updated (by SCOIN) re: timing for publishing the SCOIN decision.

JMHO
Click to expand...

Right but Wieneke made this exact argument unsuccessfully in front of SCOIN

So if SCOIN says right argument but wrong venue, it makes sense to file this

But if SCOIN said there are no grounds - then this motion doesn't make sense
 
TL4S said:
This is really the issue I have with a lot of the "evidence" coming from either side. It might be very compelling to me written as it is, but without seeing it all for myself, I can't put my whole faith in it as it is represented. For instance, one piece of "evidence" in the PCA that I find really significant is RA's vehicle being seen on the HH camera at 1:27, heading west toward the CPS lot. To me, that is coming to the trails, not leaving...important to the timeline. Okay, on its face, that seem strong. But, how good is the footage of that car? How sure are they that it belongs to RA? Being "consistent" isn't much better than RL's build not being "inconsistent" with BG's. How sure are they that car wasn't just passing through? It wasn't seen going back the same way? Why?

What about the three girls? There were actually four girls, not three? And the unspent round? It wasn't in the RL affidavit and LE sources said it could even have come from LE? Is ejection marking a good enough science to convince a jury?

I could just tell myself that these are minor details, and the overall big picture points to RA, but that overall picture is only made up of all these minor details. I believe LE likely has more evidence, but it makes me very uncomfortable the way so much of this case has been handled, from possible omissions on the PCA, to RA being held in conditions that his attorneys can't work with him, to some of JG's actions, to his own attorneys putting so much detail into the FM, to NMcL not getting the charges right...it doesn't seem fair to the victims and their families. JMO.
Click to expand...
There were four girls, not three. They interviewed 3 of the 4 girls according to I think the PCA? They named three of them as well, but not the fourth. I wonder why the 4th wasn't named? Was she perhaps a small child and not helpful to the investigators? Maybe so small they didn't interview her at all? Like would LE NOT interview someone if they were concerned that whatever information they provided might make their investigation harder / or their information inconsistent with what others said? Or can parents of a small child refuse to all their kids to be interviewed?
 
photographer4 said:
And that is precisely one of the reasons I'm not convinced of RA's guilt here. Even though he "confessed" to his people on the phone, I'm not convinced. I need solid evidence here!
Click to expand...
He didn't confess to LE interrogators, he confessed no less than 5 times to his wife and his mother, goodness! The two women in his life that know him the best, most likely. They didn't coerce him, they listened, well until his wife couldn't listen anymore and hung up on him. If that doesn't scream credibility I don't know what does. It was from the horse's mouth, a good old-fashion let me purge to the ones I love what I have done. AJMO
 
photographer4 said:
That's my issue with it as well. The FM and the PCA cannot be correct on the issue of what the witness saw, can they?? If someone can think of some plausible way that the tan / light coloured jacket became blue according to the same witness, pls help me out here! In terms of muddy and bloody, I want more information! Was his face muddy and bloody? Or just his clothes? If the jacket was blue or dark in color, what made her think it was blood? I'm asking because someone way more observant than me upthread pointed out that a dark color jacket wouldn't show blood so well and I realized, they're right! It would prob look more like mud!
Click to expand...
Also let’s not forget that “light” can be used to describe weight.
I would consider nylon, canvas or duck fabric all
to be “light”.
 
socializing? I think that is a bit of a stretch. Apparently the Judge's granddaughters play softball and were participants who placed well enough in the 7th annual Abby and Libby tournament hosted by the memorial park that they received championship finalist rings.

Had I been Gull's "then" daughter in law (are they no longer married then the woman and Gull's son?) I would know better but some don't understand the optics. As for Gull's one word "congratulations" presumably meant for her granddaughters on their superior performance - eh, I don't see that as the judge or her family socializing with the victim grandparents.

A proud mom and a grandmother's congratulations to her grands under a FB post does not a bias make JMO I doubt the judge had any reason to suspect the FM was coming down the pike later that year and her one word comment would pull her into the ever growing conspiracy against Richard Allen when she made it. :rolleyes: I do imagine she regrets it now.

I tire of the everyone is conspiring against RA song and dance the defense keeps pushing. Pretty soon the state of Indiana in its entirety will be in on the conspiracy MOO
 
Emma Peel said:
Gull's son's family socializing w/ the Pattys while Gull rules on the murder trial bench ... is a twist I did not see coming.

From the DQ motion - RA affidavit linked in this thread above, see #XVIII:


2024 1/29 affidavit_of_Richard_Allen.pdf
Click to expand...


"Judge Gulls then daughter in law".
What does that mean?

Children participating in a community event doesn't mean that the family socialized with the Patty family does it?
Offering championship rings is probably what their role in the tournament was.

Then..

Who did judge Gull congratulate?
Her grandkids? That is unclear and a bit of a stretch to claim any inappropriate behavior IMO.
 
Last edited:
Emma Peel said:
Gull's son's family socializing w/ the Pattys while Gull rules on the murder trial bench ... is a twist I did not see coming.

From the DQ motion - RA affidavit linked in this thread above, see #XVIII:


2024 1/29 affidavit_of_Richard_Allen.pdf
Click to expand...
My :oops: only means: the next hurdle! You wouldn't believe it! Everyone could be biased, it seems.
 
Last edited:
Ravenmoon said:
"Judge Gulls then daughter in law".
What does that mean?

Children participating in a community event doesn't mean that the family socialized with the Patty family does it?
Offering championship rings is probably what their role in the tournament was.

Then..

Who did judge Gull congratulate?
Her grandkids? That is unclear and a bit of a stretch to claim any salacious behavior IMO.
Click to expand...
JG's "then d-i-l" is certainly divorced now?
 
Ravenmoon said:
"Judge Gulls then daughter in law".
What does that mean?

Children participating in a community event doesn't mean that the family socialized with the Patty family does it?
Offering championship rings is probably what their role in the tournament was.

Then..

Who did judge Gull congratulate?
Her grandkids? That is unclear and a bit of a stretch to claim any salacious behavior IMO.
Click to expand...

tlcya said:
socializing? I think that is a bit of a stretch. Apparently the Judge's granddaughters play softball and were participants who placed well enough in the 7th annual Abby and Libby tournament hosted by the memorial park that they received championship finalist rings.

Had I been Gull's "then" daughter in law (are they no longer married then the woman and Gull's son?) I would know better but some don't understand the optics. As for Gull's one word "congratulations" presumably meant for her granddaughters on their superior performance - eh, I don't see that as the judge or her family socializing with the victim grandparents.

A proud mom and a grandmother's congratulations to her grands under a FB post does not a bias make JMO I doubt the judge had any reason to suspect the FM was coming down the pike later that year and her one word comment would pull her into the ever growing conspiracy against Richard Allen when she made it. :rolleyes: I do imagine she regrets it now.

I tire of the everyone is conspiring against RA song and dance the defense keeps pushing. Pretty soon the state of Indiana in its entirety will be in on the conspiracy MOO
Click to expand...

Surprised me too.
Goes to APPEARANCE OF BIAS in Gull's public social media.

If we refer to the affidavit's citations of sources that provide bar members on this paragraph:

2013 American Bar Association (ABA) Formal Opinion 462,
entitled "Judge's Use of Electronic Social Networking Media."
Click to expand...
Under the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are obligated to "maintain the
dignity of judicial office at all times and to avoid both impropriety and the appearance
of impropriety in their professional and personal lives."
Click to expand...
33 A.L.R.7th Art. 9 (Originally published in 2017) (A legal Journal)
Click to expand...

... we can see this point addresses perception of bias that arises from Gull's use of FB endorsing favorable statements made by her family with regard to parties related to the murder trial she is overseeing.

Regardless, this item (for me at least) was unexpected; I too was surprised by this claim.

JMHO
 
So, it looks like the memorial softball event is an annual event. The girls were on an existing softball team, not ones that were formed specifically for this event. So, they are expected to sit out any events like this that their team has signed up for?
 
tlcya said:
socializing? I think that is a bit of a stretch. Apparently the Judge's granddaughters play softball and were participants who placed well enough in the 7th annual Abby and Libby tournament hosted by the memorial park that they received championship finalist rings.

Had I been Gull's "then" daughter in law (are they no longer married then the woman and Gull's son?) I would know better but some don't understand the optics. As for Gull's one word "congratulations" presumably meant for her granddaughters on their superior performance - eh, I don't see that as the judge or her family socializing with the victim grandparents.

A proud mom and a grandmother's congratulations to her grands under a FB post does not a bias make JMO I doubt the judge had any reason to suspect the FM was coming down the pike later that year and her one word comment would pull her into the ever growing conspiracy against Richard Allen when she made it. :rolleyes: I do imagine she regrets it now.

I tire of the everyone is conspiring against RA song and dance the defense keeps pushing. Pretty soon the state of Indiana in its entirety will be in on the conspiracy MOO
Click to expand...
Yes I cringe that they felt compelled to add this information. It’s an over-reach and undermines the credibility of the whole motion.
 
Emma Peel said:
Surprised me too.
Goes to APPEARANCE OF BIAS in Gull's public social media.

If we refer to the affidavit's citations of sources that provide bar members on this paragraph:





... we can see this point addresses perception of bias that arises from Gull's use of FB endorsing favorable statements made by her family with regard to parties related to the murder trial she is overseeing.

Regardless, this item (for me at least) was unexpected; I too was surprised by this claim.

JMHO
Click to expand...
Does she have to have a hearing on the motion to recuse or can she just flat-out deny it?

If she refuses to recuse, does the D go for an interlocutory appeal? Or something else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 87 more.
Total: 267 (members: 88, guests: 179)

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
179
Total visitors
267
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,826
Messages
18,246,098
Members
234,459
Latest member
mclureprestige
Back
Top