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

[FrostedGlass]

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?

I'm too slow with an answer; but since I have this official record, I'll go ahead and post it.

Yes, there was a Nov. 1 deadline for discovery to be turned over. But on Oct 26, when the xD withdrew, JG issued the order in quote. I don't know if/how a discovery deadline plays with discovery that comes in after it.

Counsel ordered to comply with the previously entered Protective Order on Discovery and are ordered to turn the discovery over in full to the State of Indiana to be made available to successor counsel.

10/02/2023

Motion Filed Motion for Discovery Deadline Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/02/2023

10/10/2023

Order Issued The Court having reviewed Defendant Allen's Motion for Discovery Deadline, the Court now orders the following: without objection by the State. The State of Indiana must produce all discovery to defense counsel on or before November 1, 2023. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 10/10/2023

 

[TL4S]

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 says 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.

I guess at this point, I don't expect JG to recuse, or have a hearing, I expect a quick denial and we move on. What I don't understand is what is allowed for JG to do, as far as these motions, while this DQ motion is hanging out there in open space. Can she set hearing dates, deny or allow continuance motions, etc.? I can't imagine she could just ignore these two continuance motions, so can she rule on them now, or does it have to wait until after the DQ motion is dealt with? It's only 7 days (5 business days) until the scheduled hearing, which she scheduled without dealing with the DQ motion. It's confusing.

 

[TL4S]

I'm too slow with an answer; but since I have this official record, I'll go ahead and post it.

Yes, there was a Nov. 1 deadline for discovery to be turned over. But on Oct 26, when the xD withdrew, JG issued the order in quote. I don't know if/how a discovery deadline plays with discovery that comes in after it.

10/02/2023

Motion Filed Motion for Discovery Deadline Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/02/2023

10/10/2023

Order Issued The Court having reviewed Defendant Allen's Motion for Discovery Deadline, the Court now orders the following: without objection by the State. The State of Indiana must produce all discovery to defense counsel on or before November 1, 2023. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 10/10/2023

Yet, she had ordered the D, via email, to stop working on the case three days prior to issuing this order...

 

[FrostedGlass]

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

Here is the SC's order. They are denying the request to remove and replace the judge. I don't know if they are saying she should stay or it's not their job to do it at this point. Or ???
Case # 23S-OR-00311
Published Order
The relator, Richard Allen, seeks relief from this Court under the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions. Relator has requested a permanent writ of mandamus asking this Court to1) order the trial court to reinstate his former trial counsel, attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi, as his court-appointed counsel; (2) order the trial court to commence Relator’s trial within 70 days from the issuance of the writ; and (3) remove the special judge from Relator’s case and appoint a new special judge. Having considered the written submissions and having heard the arguments of counsel, a majority of the Court votes to GRANT the petition for writ as to Relator’s request to reinstate attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi as his court-appointed counsel. The Court unanimously DENIES all other relief sought. The Court will promptly issue a written opinion explaining its reasons. The pendency of this matter in this Court does not stay the proceedings in the trial court. Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on ___________.____________________________Loretta H. Rush Chief Justice of Indiana 1/18/2024

 

[FrostedGlass]

Another update

02/05/2024

Motion to Vacate Hearing Filed Motion to Vacate Hearing Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/05/2024

 

[mrjitty]

I guess at this point, I don't expect JG to recuse, or have a hearing, I expect a quick denial and we move on. What I don't understand is what is allowed for JG to do, as far as these motions, while this DQ motion is hanging out there in open space. Can she set hearing dates, deny or allow continuance motions, etc.? I can't imagine she could just ignore these two continuance motions, so can she rule on them now, or does it have to wait until after the DQ motion is dealt with? It's only 7 days (5 business days) until the scheduled hearing, which she scheduled without dealing with the DQ motion. It's confusing.

No idea

Once we are down to micro analysing the scheduling of hearings it's time to touch grass IMO

Judge gonna judge.

 

[steeltowngirl]

That's what I thought, too. However, if that's the case, it throws the timeline off.

We were told what time Kelsi's car was seen leaving on the HH cam and LE has used that as the drop-off time. However, that is in conflict with the arrival time Becky, Derrick and Kelsi all stated, which would put them there before the woman walker. MOO

Kelsi‘s call to her boyfriend was noted at 1:38. That time, in conjunction with the HH camera, gives us the dropoff time.

What part is thrown off?

 

[photographer4]

I'm too slow with an answer; but since I have this official record, I'll go ahead and post it.

Yes, there was a Nov. 1 deadline for discovery to be turned over. But on Oct 26, when the xD withdrew, JG issued the order in quote. I don't know if/how a discovery deadline plays with discovery that comes in after it.

10/02/2023

Motion Filed Motion for Discovery Deadline Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/02/2023

10/10/2023

Order Issued The Court having reviewed Defendant Allen's Motion for Discovery Deadline, the Court now orders the following: without objection by the State. The State of Indiana must produce all discovery to defense counsel on or before November 1, 2023. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 10/10/2023

I know in Fam Court (where I live), the most RECENT Order is the one that stands - anything before that on the same issue, unfortunately, does not. So maybe its like that?

 

[photographer4]

I guess at this point, I don't expect JG to recuse, or have a hearing, I expect a quick denial and we move on. What I don't understand is what is allowed for JG to do, as far as these motions, while this DQ motion is hanging out there in open space. Can she set hearing dates, deny or allow continuance motions, etc.? I can't imagine she could just ignore these two continuance motions, so can she rule on them now, or does it have to wait until after the DQ motion is dealt with? It's only 7 days (5 business days) until the scheduled hearing, which she scheduled without dealing with the DQ motion. It's confusing.

I mean, it would *appear* that she *can* set motions for hearing dates - because she literally *did* do that (Feb 12 - Contempt Motion to be heard, filed by guess, who? The Prosecution). So either she can, and did, or she shouldn't have and did it anyhow. Either way, she seems to kinda like making up the rules as she goes along and expects everyone to jump in line behind them.

Surprises me that given how much controversy there is even here or anywhere online regarding whether or not she IS biased (nevermind the *appearance* of bias, that she hasn't / doesn't seem interested in recusing herself. Am I the only one that thinks it is clear there is the *appearance* of bias towards the P on her part, or even towards Scremin and Lebrato? Anyone other than RA and B&R?

 

[photographer4]

Yet, she had ordered the D, via email, to stop working on the case three days prior to issuing this order...

Right? So who did she imagine the disclosure was going to go to then??? She already decided they were to stop work on the case!! I

 

[photographer4]

Here is the SC's order. They are denying the request to remove and replace the judge. I don't know if they are saying she should stay or it's not their job to do it at this point. Or ???
Case # 23S-OR-00311
Published Order
The relator, Richard Allen, seeks relief from this Court under the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions. Relator has requested a permanent writ of mandamus asking this Court to1) order the trial court to reinstate his former trial counsel, attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi, as his court-appointed counsel; (2) order the trial court to commence Relator’s trial within 70 days from the issuance of the writ; and (3) remove the special judge from Relator’s case and appoint a new special judge. Having considered the written submissions and having heard the arguments of counsel, a majority of the Court votes to GRANT the petition for writ as to Relator’s request to reinstate attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi as his court-appointed counsel. The Court unanimously DENIES all other relief sought. The Court will promptly issue a written opinion explaining its reasons. The pendency of this matter in this Court does not stay the proceedings in the trial court. Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on ___________.____________________________Loretta H. Rush Chief Justice of Indiana 1/18/2024

Promptly is such a subjective term!! UGHHHH.

 

[mrjitty]

Surprises me that given how much controversy there is even here or anywhere online regarding whether or not she IS biased (nevermind the *appearance* of bias, that she hasn't / doesn't seem interested in recusing herself. Am I the only one that thinks it is clear there is the *appearance* of bias towards the P on her part, or even towards Scremin and Lebrato? Anyone other than RA and B&R?

RSBM - I'm actually not sure which is why I am waiting for the SCOIN reasons.

On the one hand, adverse findings don't constitute bias. The Judge is supposed to make rulings and often they will be hard to stomach. Like on Morphew, many of us felt the judge was a total homer for the D - but even if he was - that isn't the kind of bias that can get a Judge to recuse. He just preferred their arguments, which is allowed. So I don't agree with the defence on that laundry list. The judge could find against you every single time. Touch luck.

But on the other hand, I kind of accept Wieneke's argument that this is a two-fer because of the special facts. The Judge tried to remove them unlawfully, therefore an appearance of bias is locked in, no matter if all her rulings are correct.

I think SCOIN will say whether Wieneke is correct.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Kelsi‘s call to her boyfriend was noted at 1:38. That time, in conjunction with the HH camera, gives us the dropoff time.

What part is thrown off?

That 1:38 time puts the girls on the trails before BB, who claimed she saw the girls as she was heading back from the bridge.

 

[steeltowngirl]

That 1:38 time puts the girls on the trails before BB, who claimed she saw the girls as she was heading back from the bridge.

I’m confused. BB saw the girls around 1:46.

 

[TL4S]

A copy of the motion to vacate is in this twitter. The motion addresses exactly what I was asking above. Now, who does this motion go to? Because seemingly JG can't move on any action. Can she rule on this motion if she denies the DQ motion first? I agree with BM here, I think she is going to have to either recuse or deny immediately. It's the only way for things to move forward.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[photographer4]

Where do we get the time that KG dropped the kids off at the trail? And was anyone else with them? I'm asking because a google search has shown me a wide range of times that she is said to have dropped them off. One media site (linked below) says 1pm. Its from 2022.
Delphi murders: What to know about the 2017 killings of Libby German and Abby Williams

This link (Court Tv) shows a different time noted (1:49pm)
Delphi Murders: Everything you want to know

This one says "around 1:35pm"
Suspect arrested in connection with 2017 Delphi murders: report

So which is it?

 

[TL4S]

Where do we get the time that KG dropped the kids off at the trail? And was anyone else with them? I'm asking because a google search has shown me a wide range of times that she is said to have dropped them off. One media site (linked below) says 1pm. Its from 2022.
Delphi murders: What to know about the 2017 killings of Libby German and Abby Williams

This link (Court Tv) shows a different time noted:
Delphi Murders: Everything you want to know

This one says "around 1:35pm"
Suspect arrested in connection with 2017 Delphi murders: report

So which is it?

IIrc, the PCA lists KG's car driving past the HH camera at 1:49. The PCA also says BB saw no vehicles in the lot when she pulled in at 1:46, but KG saw one vehicle in the lot (presumably BB's?), which seems to indicate KG dropped off between 1:46 and 1:49. The 1:38 phone call information came from her family based on phone records. My only guess is maybe she was talking to her boyfriend on the drive to the trails?

 

[FrostedGlass]

The timeline is really tight. All of these times are in the affidavit for the search warrant.

According to what we know (maybe) the girls got there about 8 minutes before BB; so they should have been ahead of BB on the trail. From this timeline, Kelsi would have seen BB's vehicle.

With all that said, the PCA states that the girls would have been dropped off right before the video (K's car passing the HH), which contradicts the arrival time that Kelsi and Becky stated.

1:38 Kelsi and girls arrive at the bridge
1:46 BB passes HH cam on the way to the bridge
1:49 Kelsi passes HH cam
2:14 BB passes HH cam going westbound

 

[photographer4]

IIrc, the PCA lists KG's car driving past the HH camera at 1:49. The PCA also says BB saw no vehicles in the lot when she pulled in at 1:46, but KG saw one vehicle in the lot (presumably BB's?), which seems to indicate KG dropped off between 1:46 and 1:49. The 1:38 phone call information came from her family based on phone records. My only guess is maybe she was talking to her boyfriend on the drive to the trails?

The time on the phone record - that would be the time she dialed out or received an incoming call - I'd like to know, how long did the call last? If she spoke with someone, or left a voicemail, I would imagine the phone record from the service provider should show the time the call started and ended. She could also say she was a X location when she made the call or when the call ended. Rate of speed may also affect the time line (eg: how fast was she going?).

 

[photographer4]

The timeline is really tight. All of these times are in the affidavit for the search warrant.

According to what we know (maybe) the girls got there about 8 minutes before BB; so they should have been ahead of BB on the trail. From this timeline, Kelsi would have seen BB's vehicle.

With all that said, the PCA states that the girls would have been dropped off right before the video (K's car passing the HH), which contradicts the arrival time that Kelsi and Becky stated.

1:38 Kelsi and girls arrive at the bridge
1:46 BB passes HH cam on the way to the bridge
1:49 Kelsi passes HH cam
2:14 BB passes HH cam going westbound

So its 8 minutes between being dropped off to where BB spotted who she thinks was the girls? Does that match the time it would take for KG to give AW a sweater from her car, AW to put it on, and the kids to walk to where they were spotted? Not familiar with the area so any help appreciated.