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

[girlhasnoname]

One way they might have a big impact is if the detailed decision says the factors argued before SCOIN don't meet the standard to recuse the judge.

OR

If they suggest they may meet the standard but the matter has to be heard in the trial court

Personally I think they were intent on disposing of the two big issues substantively so the case could move forward, but who knows.

The 2 big issues being reinstating B&R and DQ'g Judge G?

 

[mrjitty]

The 2 big issues being reinstating B&R and DQ'g Judge G?

Yes. I think it's a reasonable guess that SCOIN hasn't just reinstated B&R for procedural failings and said "go back and hold the hearing". I suspect the ruling is going to say the Judge can't remove them, because they want the trial moving again and they might as well determine the substantive issue themselves instead of telling the lower court to hold a hearing.

Recusal of the Judge is a bit different because Judge Gull can recuse herself at any time and SCOIN might be slow to remove her directly - but I have the feeling they are going to tell us what the right answer is.

Pure speculation on my part, but it would seem quite odd to leave her making big decisions on the case for 2 weeks if they thought she needs to be off the case.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think P is requiring email communication only because D is squirrelly and has in the past said one thing while doing another.
Email communication keeps a timely record of all statements of both parties.
It keeps the street clean for both sides.
JMO

I wouldn't trust any communication by R&B unless it was carved in literal stone. They're tricky like that.

IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes. I think it's a reasonable guess that SCOIN hasn't just reinstated B&R for procedural failings and said "go back and hold the hearing". I suspect the ruling is going to say the Judge can't remove them, because they want the trial moving again and they might as well determine the substantive issue themselves instead of telling the lower court to hold a hearing.

Recusal of the Judge is a bit different because Judge Gull can recuse herself at any time and SCOIN might be slow to remove her directly - but I have the feeling they are going to tell us what the right answer is.

I guess we'll see. Obviously Judge G hasn't recused and I don't think she will at this point since she's moving right along.

The SCOIN had the power to disqualify her if they found her grossly biased like R&B stated in their Motion. They unanimously decided not to.

I wonder if the SCOIN had the latest LE findings of the leaks made by B&R when they made their decisions on 1/18? I know they were basing it as they stated mainly on RA's 6th Amendment right to counsel and the procedural error in which Judge G removed them.

If they did have the latest LE findings on the leaks, maybe they kept Judge G in order for her to DQ them in the correct procedural manner. She'll have an opportunity now that the State has brought up its Motion of Contempt correct? Or is she barred from removing B&R under any circumstances?

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

IMO this would violate the GO, because the GO prohibits any extrajudicial statements to the media. But would not violate PO. WL was still technically on the case at this time. According to Bob Motta, he spoke with Barbara MacDonald who said that WL got permission from JG to give this interview.

I agree that if it's simply covering up body areas, juxtaposing pictures, or drawing arrows or circles, it's clear that this was worded in order to mislead and cause outrage against the defense. If that turns out to be the case, will it impact how you evaluate the words of NM in the future?

Hopefully it isn't super annoying for me to respond a couple days later to some stuff, I keep getting behind in the thread

Kind of like the Memo in support of Franks Hearing caused outrage against the State. The Defense subverted the protocol of filing that memorandum on purpose IMO. (at 2:04 am, not marked confidential, leaked to the masses before the Clerk could pull it down to get it viral).

GH YTer/Podcaster had pictures showing the girls bodies in full at the CS. He made copies using mannequin figure types showing how the branches were placed and in what position the girls were laying in to show onscreen. He even talked about their actual physical wounds.

MOO

EBM: Added clarification

 

[mrjitty]

I guess we'll see. Obviously Judge G hasn't recused and I don't think she will at this point since she's moving right along.

The SCOIN had the power to disqualify her if they found her grossly biased like R&B stated in their Motion. They unanimously decided not to.

I wonder if the SCOIN had the latest LE findings of the leaks made by B&R when they made their decisions on 1/18? I know they were basing it as they stated mainly on RA's 6th Amendment right to counsel and the procedural error in which Judge G removed them.

If they did have the latest LE findings on the leaks, maybe they kept Judge G in order for her to DQ them in the correct procedural manner. She'll have an opportunity now that the State has brought up its Motion of Contempt correct? Or is she barred from removing B&R under any circumstances?

MOO

IIRC SCOIN didn't get any discussion about in what circumstances the Judge could remove appointed counsel so I am guessing they think this was nowhere close.

The thing about recusal, is the perception of bias normally arises from some kind of conflict and can't arise from adverse decisions. You and I went through this on Morphew where it felt like the Judge was totally in the defence's pocket. I believe he was biased in the way he preferred their arguments - but that is no basis to ask for recusal. It just sucks. Same on Pistorius - Judge felt like a defence fan, wrecked the trial, and had to be overturned multiple times on appeal lol.

Judges mess up all the time. Doesn't mean you can ask for a new one IMO. So maybe they did prefer the AG/Judge's arguments here.

Also - be careful what you wish for. I'd prefer a new Judge who provided detailed written reasons. But I think you can't assume a different Judge would have thought that Franks memo held water.

My wild speculation
ETA - when i get time i will look back at what the AG argued about this.

 

[TL4S]

IIRC SCOIN didn't get any discussion about in what circumstances the Judge could remove appointed counsel so I am guessing they think this was nowhere close.

The thing about recusal, is the perception of bias normally arises from some kind of conflict and can't arise from adverse decisions. You and I went through this on Morphew where it felt like the Judge was totally in the defence's pocket. I believe he was biased in the way he preferred their arguments - but that is no basis to ask for recusal. It just sucks. Same on Pistorius - Judge felt like a defence fan, wrecked the trial, and had to be overturned multiple times on appeal lol.

Judges mess up all the time. Doesn't mean you can ask for a new one IMO. So maybe they did prefer the AG/Judge's arguments here.

Also - be careful what you wish for. I'd prefer a new Judge who provided detailed written reasons. But I think you can't assume a different Judge would have thought that Franks memo held water.

My wild speculation
ETA - when i get time i will look back at what the AG argued about this.

The SCOIN's decision is setting a precedent, isn't it? I'm genuinely asking because that's how I interpreted it, but I'm not confident of my understanding.

If something like the speedy trial issue should be decided at trial court level, then that is perhaps the reason they ruled liked they did? Them not voting unanimously on reinstating B/R could be something as simple as one justice thought they should have gone the route of an interlocutory appeal first, or it could be as serious as one or two justices agreed they were grossly negligent? We don't know until the decision is released, and this will become case law, correct?

 

[FrostedGlass]

The SCOIN's decision is setting a precedent, isn't it? I'm genuinely asking because that's how I interpreted it, but I'm not confident of my understanding.

If something like the speedy trial issue should be decided at trial court level, then that is perhaps the reason they ruled liked they did? Them not voting unanimously on reinstating B/R could be something as simple as one justice thought they should have gone the route of an interlocutory appeal first, or it could be as serious as one or two justices agreed they were grossly negligent? We don't know until the decision is released, and this will become case law, correct?

The SC heard another argument on this same matter a week after RA's case.
I'm really anxious to compare the opinions.

There's also one regarding a speedy trial that we should see an opinion on.
See: Pink Robinson and William Grimes

Indiana Appellate Clerk's Portal

 

[TL4S]

The SC heard another argument on this same matter a week after RA's case.
I'm really anxious to compare the opinions.

There's also one regarding a speedy trial that we should see an opinion on.
See: Pink Robinson and William Grimes

Indiana Appellate Clerk's Portal

If you see those decisions come up, please let us know!

 

[FrostedGlass]

If you see those decisions come up, please let us know!

I will.

 

[mrjitty]

The SCOIN's decision is setting a precedent, isn't it? I'm genuinely asking because that's how I interpreted it, but I'm not confident of my understanding.

If something like the speedy trial issue should be decided at trial court level, then that is perhaps the reason they ruled liked they did? Them not voting unanimously on reinstating B/R could be something as simple as one justice thought they should have gone the route of an interlocutory appeal first, or it could be as serious as one or two justices agreed they were grossly negligent? We don't know until the decision is released, and this will become case law, correct?

Yes we don't really know the grounds but there is a lot of reading of the tea leaves going on

 

[mrjitty]

ETA - when i get time i will look back at what the AG argued about this.

For reference, the AG argued that SCOIN could not order recusal because Allen had not yet correctly sought the relief in the trial court. (the motion was filed after Rozzi had been removed).

(Page 20 of the AG's response)

Judge Gull argued that adverse factual findings don't amount to bias (page 20 of JGs response)

Even if Baldwin and Rozzi still represented Relator, Respondent has exhibited no actual bias or prejudice against them. Relator offers a scant two sentences to support his assertion that Respondent has exhibited bias or prejudice. According to Relator, Respondent’s “f[inding] that counsel were grossly negligent and publicly proclaim[ing] that she ha[d] ‘grave concerns about their representation’” warrant Respondent’s disqualification. Brief, p. 18. But a judge’s findings adverse to a party do not show, or even imply, bias or prejudice. L.G., 88 N.E.3d at 1073; Zavodnik, 17 N.E.3d at 269; Voss, 856 N.E.2d at 1217. Further, these findings do not demonstrate actual personal bias. Respondent did not state that she had “grave concerns” about Baldwin and Rozzi personally. Rather, she had concerns only about their representation of Relator and his right to competent representation.

FWIW

So most likely one of these arguments succeeded, or both, or some combination

 

[susiQ]

There has been some question about the timing of the first sister coming forward due to its close proximity to the announcement of a reward. According to some ideas, the sisters were taking advantage of their brother because he apparently has the mind of a seven year old.

Unfortunately, in this case, people seem ready to jump on board with any conspiracy theory that disproves the D's Odinist theory.

Personally, I have found many things in this case hard to believe, from 77 year old RL being the suspect, to keyboard jockey KAK, to a CVS worker with a clean criminal history, to DC's overtly religious talk, to RI's description of the CS being odd, to the two vastly different sketches, to the hundreds of strange coincidences, to the highly unusual treatment of RA as an in-custody defendant, to the judge's handling of the docket, to NMcL saying others could be involved and everyone ignoring that (yet putting merit to every other thing he says), to the weird FM, to the leaks, to a suicide, to Odinist guards allowed to wear patches and tattoos that could possibly tie to white supremacy in the prison system, to the SCOIN hearing oral arguments and ruling in less than four hours, and so on. The Chaos Theory is the only theory that makes sense to me anymore. Jmo.

Excellent summary of what all is wrong with this case!

Sometimes I like to remind others that conspiracy theory ceases to be theory when evidence shows it to be fact. Then, it’s just a flagrant conspiracy. Unfortunately, when LE do not follow through with a proper, thorough investigation, how does one nail down the actual facts to ascertain the truth so one is able to differentiate between theory and fact??

While some willfully ignore that there are facts in this case that do not jive with the assertions of LE and the P, they without any further thought continue to hunker down and shout “Conspiracy Theory!” I think of the tune “Where have all the flowers gone?” except I’d substitute, “Where has all the critical thinking gone?”

Now we have a judge, that according to Lebrato is fair and competent, or at least she has been in the past. So why all the screw ups now? To me it appears she is pro NM, propping up what I see as an incompetent prosecutor who is clutching at straws to keep this trial out of the court. I see desperation on his part and an “need” to do something to justify his pay grade. I see JG ruining her career supporting his incompetence. Why is she making all these mistakes and in the process damaging her reputation and the “appearance” of bias??
All JMO.

 

[susiQ]

How can we say what actions LE did or didn't do to investigate and/or eliminate other POI? I'm sure they did their due diligence in clearing these people. EF's story to his sister and sister to LE doesn't ring true to me at all. Do we really believe LE purposely didn't investigate these types of leads? Maybe they did get DNA from EF and clear him? We don't know anything for a fact.

EF has the mental capacity of a 7 year old, why wouldn't it be considered that he was caught up in the notoriety and buzz around this case? It would be something that would definitely make him feel special and connected to something important.

There are 2 sides to these questions IMO.

JMO

Except, EF identified aspects of the crime scene. He put sticks in Abby’s hair. This called for VERY THOROUGH investigation. JMO

 

[WildHuncher]

i think people tend to want some bigger story to explain it, but unfortunately older guys do sometimes do their first murder (often their wife).

IMO

That sounds like a whole other kind of case from the way this one has always smelled to me.

 

[arielilane]

@NewsyBarbara

Here’s the Odin face tattoo and necklace charm filed with the court in William Lebrato’s Motion to Transfer

https://twitter.com/x/status/1753490566946422853

 

[arielilane]

Today, Rozzi moved to continue the Feb 12 hearing. Rozzi contends it was set w/o consultation & doesn’t provide adequate time to prepare. Would note the statute requires a “reasonable and just opportunity to be purged of the contempt.” I agree w/ Rozzi.

Rozzi also contends he is entitled to the appointment of a special judge pursuant to Ind. Code 34-47-3-7. I disagree. An exception to the special judge requirement is if the contempt grew out of willful disobedience of a court order.

Finally, Rozzi contends the court does not have authority to conduct a contempt proceeding bc a change of judge motion has been filed and is pending. I agree. The Indiana Supreme Court has stated that when “presented w/ a timely motion for change of judge, the trial judge is divested of jurisdiction to act in the case on any matter other than the motion for change of judge or emergency matters.” State ex rel Wade v. Cass Circuit Court, 447 NE2d 1082, 1083 (Ind. 1983).

It is difficult to contend the contempt issue is an emergency matter when the State filed its information over a year after the 1st allegation. Thus, Judge Gull must address Allen’s motion before proceeding any further.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1753625847011873159

 

[arielilane]

It is interesting to re-read articles from early in the investigation and compare wording from then and now. JMO




Leazenby advised there is DNA from the crime scene but refused to divulge from where it originated. He said there is “suggestive” evidence of fingerprints found at the crime scene.

“This is not simple,” the Sheriff said. “This is not television. DNA can come from all sorts of places and fingerprints can be smudged and hard to identify.”

Lots of tips, no arrest in 2017 double homicide - Carroll County Comet

Carroll County Sheriff Tobe Leazenby told the Comet Monday roughly 40,000 tips have been received in the investigation into the homicides of Abigail Williams and Liberty German on Feb. 13, 2017. Leazenby reported that roughly 9,000 tips were received in 2019 and approxim ately 3 , 0 0 0 have...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

Agreed that the perpetrator "knew the lay of the land" imo, you had to have been very familiar with the location, and you dont just come up upon it. Most definitely a local who knew the area well. My thoughts.

However, the part about community members will likely be shocked at the identity of those arrested and likely be someone who is fairly well-known in the community - I supposed to be taken with a grain of salt, but then that is all water under the bridge... idk


From the article:

The Sheriff speculated that a perpetrator has probably been interviewed by investigators about the crime, but was not immediately recognized as a offender. He said he still believes a local, or locals, committed the crimes. Leazenby said whoever did this “knew the lay of the land.” He said when an arrest is made, which he believes will happen, community members will likely be shocked at the identity of those arrested. He said he believes the perpetrator will likely be someone who is fairly well-known in the community.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Kind of like the Memo in support of Franks Hearing caused outrage against the State. The Defense subverted the protocol of filing that memorandum on purpose IMO. (at 2:04 am, not marked confidential, leaked to the masses before the Clerk could pull it down to get it viral).

SBM- Yup, which the SCOIN clarified for us there is No legal reason for the FM to be confidential and told JG to cease censoring the filings. Good on B&R for following the law relating to public access.

 

[TL4S]

What truly bothers me with where this case stands is that I do feel JG is likely a competent judge, and I also feel her choices in appointing B/R, then S/L, were made with careful consideration to their own competency. So, for us to then call all four lawyers clowns for how they have gone about RA's defense is kind of a reflection on JG's judgement, too, isn't it? I just can't get on board with that. Mistakes have been made at EVERY level, but I think people are legit trying to do their jobs. JMO.