Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182

[vinayd]

Because the jury is the trier of fact, not the judge. Those three dots have to be proven to be who they are, which is a fact question.

The judge has to first decide if the jury is going to hear it. If the Judge, State and D know who the dots are and they are not relevant to RA. Why talk about it? We need to talk about RA, his phone, his alibi, his explanation and confessions.

 

[TTF14]

Oh it’s going to be in. State is just asking for relevant to be in

Those 3 dots may be victims family members searching for the girls. Irrelevant and damaging to the victims family and absolutely unnecessary.

If 3 dots are RSO’s with no known alibi then relevant.

Easy peasy. JMO

It doesn't matter who the dots are. If they belong to people who said they were elsewhere, they need to be in there.

IMO MOO

 

[vinayd]

It's not "new exculpatory" evidence that Libby's phone was pinging all over the place. MP told us that in the beginning. This is the reason they want a Franks this time.

 

[sunshineray]

Oh man.. 2nd crime scene true?

22.The exculpatory report the defense received on Friday, April 26, 2024 (17 days before trial begins) provides evidence that the victims were not at the crime scene on February 13, 2017.
ACCUSED’S REPLY TO THE STATE’S REPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

That link doesn't bring me anywhere?

 

[TTF14]

What did the investigators lie about in the PCA? A nd what's your proof for that, the FM?

The footnotes/references provided in the Franks Memo, yes. Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh specifically.

IMO MOO

 

[AugustWest]

But she can't determine whether they are relevant without hearing from an expert on whether the dots are what the prosecution represents them to be.

ETA: and if those three dots are relevant, why are other dots on the map not relevant? It would be a fact question as to whether the expert was reliable, which would be made by the jury.

 

[TTF14]

It's not "new exculpatory" evidence that Libby's phone was pinging all over the place. DG told us that in the beginning. This is the reason they want a Franks this time.

MP said that, not DG. DG hasn't said a peep since his daughter was murdered.

IMO MOO

 

[vinayd]

That link doesn't bring me anywhere?

Fixed it thank you!

 

[sunshineray]

Because the jury is the trier of fact, not the judge. Those three dots have to be proven to be who they are, which is a fact question.

The judge will need to determine the relevancy before a jury gets to hear about them. Let's wait and see if she determines they will.

 

[vinayd]

But she can't determine whether they are relevant without hearing from an expert on whether the dots are what the prosecution represents them to be.

I understand that. A hearing with documentation from both sides will help her determine what is relevant.

 

[vinayd]

MP said that, not DG. DG hasn't said a peep since his daughter was murdered.

IMO MOO

Thank you let me fix my post! And it's ok to lay low and not speak out after a tragedy.

 

[sunshineray]

It doesn't matter who the dots are. If they belong to people who said they were elsewhere, they need to be in there.

IMO MOO

Where are you getting that they've been determined to have said they were elsewhere? So in other words lied to LE about having been near the crime scenc area? Only person we know did that was RL, the owner of the crime scene property.

 

[sunshineray]

The footnotes/references provided in the Franks Memo, yes. Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh specifically.

IMO MOO

Right, ok FM is not a strictly factual document. It's full of conjecture, innuendos and straight up lies. Not a document to trust, IMO

 

[AugustWest]

The judge will need to determine the relevancy before a jury gets to hear about them. Let's wait and see if she determines they will.

I was answering a question of @vinayd, not getting anxious to hear whether the judge will or will not determine relevance.

 

[sunshineray]

But she can't determine whether they are relevant without hearing from an expert on whether the dots are what the prosecution represents them to be.

ETA: and if those three dots are relevant, why are other dots on the map not relevant? It would be a fact question as to whether the expert was reliable, which would be made by the jury.

We don't know everything said, done or discovered in the investigation. Best to let the judge decide if things are relevant and/or prejudicial...for either side.

 

[sunshineray]

I was answering a question of @vinayd, not getting anxious to hear whether the judge will or will not determine relevance.

Yes, or prejudice.

 

[Salah11]

After reading that latest Frank’s they just get more and more desperate to blame anybody bar RA. It’s absolutely pathetic and clearly won’t work.

Moo

 

[FrostedGlass]

Finally!

04/30/2024

Motion for Pretrial Conference Filed Motion for Pre-Trial Hearing File By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 04/30/2024

 

[sunshineray]

After reading that latest Frank’s they just get more and more desperate to blame anybody bar RA. It’s absolutely pathetic and clearly won’t work.

Moo

Yes it sure does seem that way. Will there be a 5th FM I wonder?

 

[Salah11]

Yes it sure does seem that way. Will there be a 5th FM I wonder?

Well I’m expecting a few more Franks before they get to trial. They seem to enjoy writing fanfics for the masses. There must be a few more innocent people they have failed to mention yet to cover a few more franks. I notice they have still not addressed his multiple confessions to dear old Mum and Wifey.

I have every faith in Judge Gull that she won’t let these clowns just throw innocent people under the bus at trial.



Mooooooooooooooooo