Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #175

[photographer4]

Interesting post.
To me one of the big problems in the defence case is how come he didn’t see anyone else except for the 3 juvenile girls?

Woman walker had to have seen him on the bridge IMO. There is no other place he can be.

I guess the defence case has to be that the 3 juveniles saw bridge guy and Allen had left moments before.

If RA saw the three girls maybe they were more memorable as one said hello to him? Maybe he didn’t notice or recall the other lady who saw him. I hike all the time and I couldn’t be sure some days of who else I saw out there or when. Not that odd to me.

Or. Maybe he saw the girls but they were further away and didn’t say anything to him as it wasn’t him they spoke with? Maybe he didn’t see the lady because she saw someone else and not him.

To me the key questions would be:
- where exactly did RA see the three kids? On a map. Nearer Monon or nearer freedom bridge?
- what if anything happened when they passed him (if they did according to him). Next answer should be someone said hello to him if he’s the BG and if he isn’t, nothing should have happened.
- how did he get back to “the old farm building” where he parked?
- why did he park there at all?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I wonder what happened to the D motion for continuance on the contempt charge?

02/01/2024

Order Issued Court orders the State's Motion to Amend Information, filed January 18, 2024, and the State's Verified Information of Contemptuous Conduct, filed January 29, 2024, set for hearing on February 12, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in the Allen Superior Court. Court will issue a Transport Order to have the defendant present. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 02/01/2024

02/02/2024

Motion for Continuance Filed Motion for Continuance Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/02/2024

 

[susane7]

Another Motion for Continuance has been filed today by the Defense.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[mrjitty]

RSSBM
Did he? It’s assumed he saw the same group of girls that saw Bridgeguy, but IIRC, It was an unseasonably warm day and school was out. We don’t know how many groups were out on the trail that day. The girls have a description of bridgeguy. Do RA give a description of the girls, besides the very vague , three girls Walking in a group? Is it possible he saw another group of 3 girls, not the group who saw bridge guy?

MOO

I think this has to be their version. He saw a group of 3 girls around 12 - who are not the ones in the AA.

The problem will be whether that is possible based on earlier witnesses.

 

[photographer4]

Regarding your good questions:
"S&L filed the Motion to transfer and JG stated it is taken under advisement until state responds (which they did) then a hearing will be set. So why no hearing date set? Also, is the Motion still valid since S&L withdrew as counsel? Why are they still listed as RA's attorneys and still receiving notices?"

First, I don't understand why the P even has a voice in this. The transfer was put in place by the sheriff and the court.
The D filed a motion to continue; so that may be why there is no hearing date set.

I have no idea about the validity of the motion at this point. S&L filed a redaction on the motion; no idea what that's about, either.

Off hand, the only reason I can think of as to why S&L are still receiving notices and are only just now withdrawing is they are slow to respond. Maybe their names will be removed this week. That was such a flurry of filings; that alone could cause a delay.

I suspect JG is just taking her sweet time to bother lifting a finger for RA / R&B. There is literally NO reason that I can see why she couldn't just summarily decide to move RA today. What is the point of hearing the state on this? Why would the state object to him being moved in the first place? What do they care where he is housed? This is nonsense and a waste of taxpayer money and court resources.

 

[photographer4]

I think this has to be their version. He saw a group of 3 girls around 12 - who are not the ones in the AA.

The problem will be whether that is possible based on earlier witnesses.

There were four girls who saw a man described as BG. One spoke to him and he didn't respond. But for some reason, only 3 were interviewed by LE. I'd like to know - how many girls did RA see? Three? Or Four?

 

[photographer4]

Since there were actually 4 girls in that group, why did he only see 3?

I just asked the same thing without having had the benefit of seeing you were on the same train of thought!

 

[FrostedGlass]

Another Motion for Continuance has been filed today by the Defense.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

I'm in awe of the Luck of the McLeland.

It seems that during the months the xD were off the case and the Scremins were in the process of catching up, McLeland was on the way to discovering new things. And RA has been moved even further away than before.

Now B&R still don't have all the original discovery, who knows about Scremin's discovery (if they had any), and are now getting McL's new, unseen discovery dumped on them.

Add to that JG still has to deal with her DQ (doesn't she?) Can she sweep it away with the stroke of a pen?

 

[mrjitty]

I suspect JG is just taking her sweet time to bother lifting a finger for RA / R&B. There is literally NO reason that I can see why she couldn't just summarily decide to move RA today. What is the point of hearing the state on this? Why would the state object to him being moved in the first place? What do they care where he is housed? This is nonsense and a waste of taxpayer money and court resources.

I don’t think gull is allowed to rule on anything right now? Doesn’t the recusal thing go first?

 

[Niner]

@Niner The hearing date is entered:

02/05/2024	Hearing Scheduling Activity Hearing scheduled for 02/12/2024 at 9:00 AM.
02/12/2024	Hearing Session: 02/12/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Comment: To be held in the Allen Superior Court 5

I wonder what happened to the D motion for continuance on the contempt charge?

02/01/2024

Order Issued Court orders the State's Motion to Amend Information, filed January 18, 2024, and the State's Verified Information of Contemptuous Conduct, filed January 29, 2024, set for hearing on February 12, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in the Allen Superior Court. Court will issue a Transport Order to have the defendant present. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 02/01/2024

02/02/2024

Motion for Continuance Filed Motion for Continuance Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/02/2024

In your first quote - I believe that is going to be continued - considered they put in another motion for continuance. I shall put a "maybe" on it for the time being.

Thanks for the updates!

 

[Ravenmoon]

I don’t think gull is allowed to rule on anything right now? Doesn’t the recusal thing go first?

I am confused. The SCOIN unanimously chose to keep her on the case, did they not?

 

[FrostedGlass]

In your first quote - I believe that is going to be continued - considered they put in another motion for continuance. I shall put a "maybe" on it for the time being.

Thanks for the updates!

Yes, they have filed two motions for continuance; neither of which has been responded to by JG. Maybe a "maybe" will work. Maybe not. Who knows?
You're welcome.

 

[Emma Peel]

Below:

New D Motion for the Feb 12th Amendment of Charges hearing to be continued below.
(That hearing is set for Feb 12th. Along w/ the P's other hearing for Contempt.)

This continuance motion asserts that until the D reviews the "new" discovery they have just received from the P, the D is unable to take a position as to the P's "Amendment of Charges" .

IMO - It seems the D only recently received all "discovery" that Lebrato/Scremin had returned to the Prosecution upon their withdrawal. The Prosecution has now transferred this "discovery" back to the Baldwin/Rozzi Defense. In this set of discovery just received, there's "voluminous "new" discovery".

Note 1: With last week's filings, one of the P's filings demanded the D send the P all of the D's discovery. That demand from the P stated that the P had already given the D all the P's discovery.

Note 2: Also from last week filings, Rozzi filed for continuance of the P's Contempt motion hearing; also scheduled for Feb 12th.

JMHO

 

[photographer4]

I'm in awe of the Luck of the McLeland.

It seems that during the months the xD were off the case and the Scremins were in the process of catching up, McLeland was on the way to discovering new things. And RA has been moved even further away than before.

Now B&R still don't have all the original discovery, who knows about Scremin's discovery (if they had any), and are now getting McL's new, unseen discovery dumped on them.

Add to that JG still has to deal with her DQ (doesn't she?) Can she sweep it away with the stroke of a pen?

Am just wondering, does anything stop HER from asking for a special judge to rule over the motion to DQ her?

 

[photographer4]

I'm in awe of the Luck of the McLeland.

It seems that during the months the xD were off the case and the Scremins were in the process of catching up, McLeland was on the way to discovering new things. And RA has been moved even further away than before.

Now B&R still don't have all the original discovery, who knows about Scremin's discovery (if they had any), and are now getting McL's new, unseen discovery dumped on them.

Add to that JG still has to deal with her DQ (doesn't she?) Can she sweep it away with the stroke of a pen?

Were they not under ORDER to provide ALL discovery to Defence back in November 2023? Should that not STILL have applied even when Scremin and Lebrato took over? Why on EARTH would the judge not just say, nope, sorry - you were on a deadline, you missed it, anything inculpatory submitted post that date is not admisable?

 

[photographer4]

I don’t think gull is allowed to rule on anything right now? Doesn’t the recusal thing go first?

Well then, she must really want the recusal motion dealt with before Feb 12 since she had the gall (see what I did here?) to schedule the contempt motion for the Prosecution on the 12th of Feb.

 

[TL4S]

Well then, she must really want the recusal motion dealt with before Feb 12 since she had the gall (see what I did here?) to schedule the contempt motion for the Prosecution on the 12th of Feb.

With the Feb. 12 hearing only seven days away, I don't see JG setting a hearing for the DQ motion. It seems pretty obvious to me that she is not going to recuse herself, and will deny the DQ motion flat out. Idk if she's waiting until the SCOIN comes out with their detailed decision, or what, but I would imagine the DQ denial will come very soon. Can she even grant a continuance, at this point, or will she need to deny the DQ first? All I know is there will have to be more filings throughout this week, if I'm understanding this at all, which I might not be...

 

[Emma Peel]

Were they not under ORDER to provide ALL discovery to Defence back in November 2023? Should that not STILL have applied even when Scremin and Lebrato took over? Why on EARTH would the judge not just say, nope, sorry - you were on a deadline, you missed it, anything inculpatory submitted post that date is not admisable?

JMHO:

Like you, I recall that ... last fall 2023, the D asserted in the FM that the P was withholding exculpatory evidence and other evidence ... and B/R demanded it. Gull put a Nov 1 deadline on it ... and the P likely delivered it to Lebrato/Scremin - along with all the previous discovery provided to B/R - during the the L/S tenure as defense counsel.

So, I'm thinking that this AM's motion references "new" discovery from the P, but it's really just the portion of the P's discovery that the P was sandbagging back in October.

Again, just a hunch on my part.

 

[mrjitty]

With the Feb. 12 hearing only seven days away, I don't see JG setting a hearing for the DQ motion. It seems pretty obvious to me that she is not going to recuse herself, and will deny the DQ motion flat out. Idk if she's waiting until the SCOIN comes out with their detailed decision, or what, but I would imagine the DQ denial will come very soon. Can she even grant a continuance, at this point, or will she need to deny the DQ first? All I know is there will have to be more filings throughout this week, if I'm understanding this at all, which I might not be...

The thing is the DQ motion contains 95% the same content as was argued unsuccessfully in front of SCOIN, so its hard to see how it can succeed unless SCOIN was simply kicking the decision back downstairs with some heavy hints. If they've dismissed it on the merits than there is no real reason for Gull to recuse at all.

 

[Emma Peel]

DBM
error post.