Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[photographer4]

I suspect the odds are better the defense will file something to delay the hearings, like they've done ad nauseam. JMO

Possibly. Perhaps we will hear some more disclosure has not been included to the D, or that other interviews were recorded over or are unavailable or didn’t happen etc. Maybe they’ll spar with NM over some motion he may yet make to ban their use of certain words at trial… who knows. Should be an interesting pre trial and few months leading up to trial.

I wanted to add to this; although I participate in this discussion, I have not lost sight of the fact that two kids were killed and two families and many loved ones are forever altered. As interesting as I find the court proceedings, I would just as soon live in a world where these were not necessary as that would mean we live in a better world than we actually do. I wish peace and closure to the families and loved ones and hope that if RA is guilty that the state can prove their case.

 

[photographer4]

This is a good article that can give you a quick run down:

Jury selection begins Monday in Delphi double murder case

Richard Allen is accused of killing Libby German and Abby Williams in 2017

www.fox19.com

Thank you! I didn’t expect an answer at this hour! You’re so fast!!

 

[sunshineray]

I’m hoping they happen and that matters get resolution! A lot of times I feel like JG never really actually gets anything accomplished or settled at hearings. She just decides to hear it later or not hear it at all (eg: no hearing on her removal of B&R). Mooooo.

And I see it exactly the opposite, the defense have been the ones throwing up roadblocks to the case going to trial at every turn. Their track record speaks for itself and speaks volumes too...it's deafening really, how unprepared and inept they've acted to date.
Of course AJMO

 

[photographer4]

And I see it exactly the opposite, the defense have been the ones throwing up roadblocks to the case going to trial at every turn. Their track record speaks for itself and speaks volumes too...it's deafening really, how unprepared and inept they've acted to date.
Of course AJMO

I imagine we will see if and when a trial actually happens how prepared either side was. In the end, all I really care about is that they get the right person(s) for the crime and get them put away. If that takes a long time, so be it. Make it as fair as possible to the accused so that if convicted it sticks.

 

[sunshineray]

I imagine we will see if and when a trial actually happens how prepared either side was. In the end, all I really care about is that they get the right person(s) for the crime and get them put away. If that takes a long time, so be it. Make it as fair as possible to the accused so that if convicted it sticks.

Yes the trial will tell. Hopefully this nonsense with trying to get the judge kicked off the case and SM personalities and the defense collusion can just stop and all can do their talking in court.
**fingers and toes crossed**

 

[girlhasnoname]

Not to be pessimistic but quite honestly I doubt we will see any significant penalties here. If the past is any indication of this it is a high legal bar to prove guilt and even then the penalties are light. I don't have to like it, but unfortunately its the way it tends to go.
I believe MW walked away with a diversion program requirement for his involvement in “the leak” and AB&BR may have some professional board to answer to for their part but let’s be realistic here- the consequences will most likely be underwhelming and years from being handed down.
Unfortunately, the consequences don’t always match the misdeed and shouldn’t be the measurement used to determine the gravity of the conduct.

I thought MW's Motion to Dismiss was denied and a bench trial was set for Sept.? Has he already been to Court and sentenced?

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

What's the current bets that the trial will actually happen in October? Anyone?

I think JG will hold R&B's feet to the fire after all of the ridiculous garbage from SM and their yet again failed attempt to get her kicked off the case.

Guys, do your jobs. For the sake of Abby, Libby, their families and the entire community of Delphi. Let's go.

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

I definitely agree with you. I think we’d all agree that we would want to protect the dignity of the victims and save the family from being re-traumatized but releasing some info is going to prompt the public to give tips and information to keep the investigation active.

We heard in the early years the original prosecutor Ives discussed the 3-4 “signatures” found at the scene. This seems like something helpful for the public to know more about in case it could trigger someone to call in and identify a group or persons. I wonder if these signatures were also what connected the crimescene of the murdered elderly couple in Kentucky. I believe that one had religious tones to it. I don’t think we have heard how LE is relating these signatures in RAs case.

all MOO

This is not an investigation led by the people, it's an investigation led by authorities either hired or elected by the people to do the job.

That entails all aspects, first finding out who committed crimes and the process of then prosecuting them.

Just because those professionals then ask the people for tips to help with their jobs, doesn't then entitle the people to know everything or make investigative decisions about how a case is handled before it comes to trial. The only thing people who just feel they just have to know more should do is petition the court to turn over more information. They don't get to decide, a judge would.

The Delphi case is a screeching example of the people hating the not knowing and a defense team trying to foster and take advantage of that. Their extreme interest to know without waiting for the trial and SM's relentlessness has created disarray and delinquency.

This defense, IMO, have exploited that atmosphere and the legal system itself. SM have also. ISP Carter was correct in what he said. AJMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

And here we are on Websleuths talking about it. Gobsmacked, I tell ya.

IMO MOO

That's comparing apples to oranges IMO. This is a public true crime website. We are not affiliated with the Defense or Prosecution, nor are members here gathering intel on the down low to pass along to the DPG on up to R&B.

We are armchair sleuths commenting openly, this DPG is supposed to be Professional Licensed Attorneys who have and/or are still working with the Defense Duo of Defendant RA, in a double homicide case. This is very real for him, not a game or a SM crank session. Major difference.

I believe R&B have done RA a huge disservice in their representation even though I believe him to be guilty. RA is still entitled to a competent and vigorous defense, of which I think R&B have done neither.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

She didn't have to meet those deadlines because the DT kept filing other copy cat motions, which nullified and paused the legal requirement of Judge G needing to reply to the previous motions.



They ruled that "the DT waived any right to relief in this manner by filing motions beyond the time that either party could have legitimately raised a claim for removal. "

And, because "Mr. Allen filed a motion seeking to advance the matter before the trial court, Mr. Allen has waved any relief."

Indiana Supreme Court refuses to remove judge in Delphi murders case​

I wonder can RA sue his lawyers for malpractice? I know he can't appeal a conviction because of ineffective council but what about malpractice? Would that be considered the same? Kind of a be careful what you ask for, buyer beware?

 

[sunshineray]

So we are pretending it was really this other hypothetical acceptable reason to ghost the franks -which is never mentioned anywhere- after the judge states specifically that she would rule and it’s not that she just obviously didn’t meet the deadline but it doesn’t matter anyways because everything is the defenses fault including that the judge can’t meet her own deadlines. Exhausting.

She ruled on two of the FMs, she denied them. Two more FMs does seem intentionally repetitive to me. MO

 

[sunshineray]

I am unfamiliar with a murdered couple from Kentucky - where may I find more info on this? Sounds worth learning more about!

"Cold Case detectives at the Boone County Sheriff’s Office recently received a tip that there may be a connection between the 2017 Delphi, Indiana murders of two girls and the 2011 killings of Bill and Peggy Stephenson of Florence.

After investigating the tip, said cold case Det. Coy Cox, it was determined there was no connection."

Boone County detectives explore possible connection to Delphi murders

Cold Case detectives at the Boone County Sheriff’s Office recently received a tip that there may be a connection between the 2017 Delphi, Indiana murders of two girls and the 2011 killings of Bill and Peggy Stephenson of Florence. After investigating the tip, said cold case Det. Coy Cox, it was...

linknky.com

 

[Vern]

Lmao. Oh dear. Should have sat on their hands I guess?

No, but should have filed that Praecipe instead of more motions apparently. Bad play on the Defence Team council's part that keeps Judge Gull on the case IAW Indiana law.

 

[Vern]

Why do you think they aren’t ready?

This latest supreme court ruling has me thinking that Team D may still be learning the law. Apparently they have only just learned what the difference is between a Praecipe and a motion --- and it cost their client a chance at getting the judge removed. That's basic stuff.

I won't say, "good on them" because it's actually bad on them.

 

[sunshineray]

No, but should have filed that Praecipe instead of more motions apparently. Bad play on the Defence Team council's part that keeps Judge Gull on the case IAW Indiana law.

And even if they had filed it correctly, the judge didn't necessarily have to meet the deadline. There are exceptions, one being repetitive filings. We all have seen that's a favorite thing to do for the defense team. MO

 

[steeltowngirl]

"However, Mr. Allen is mistaken, and the matter should not be removed from the trial court," Justin Forkner, chief administrative officer of the Indiana Supreme Court, wrote in a decision Friday.

Forkner said the rules ― specifically Indiana Trial Rule 53.1 ― no longer apply to Allen because the deadline to ask for withdrawal based on the judge's failure to issue timely rulings has passed.

The request centers on two motions that were filed in March and April. Months later, Gull has yet to issue a ruling. But Forker said that to successfully remove the case from Gull's court, Allen should've made the request shortly after the 30-day time frame had elapsed ― not months later.

Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen loses in latest attempt to remove judge from case

Richard Allen and his defense team have repeatedly argued that Special Judge Frances Gull is biased against them.

www.jconline.com

 

[Tealgrove]

Here we sit, approx 3 months away from the start of the trial and my guess is that the Defence is still nowhere near ready to go to trial.

I’m beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, they have no intention of preparing for trial.

They only way to get RA off was getting the SW thrown out, allowing the Odinist SODDI strategy, or getting Judge Gull thrown off the case and getting a more favourable judge and starting all over. And if none of that worked, now messing with the jury and hoping for a mistrial is the plan. But, now we know their intentions. They’ve tried all of that. It didn’t work and won’t work.

Let’s not be naive. The D has read the Discovery. They know what’s in it. These are desperate times which calls for desperate measures.

Maybe, just maybe, RA will plead guilty. Maybe the Discovery is so bad that there’s no way to really defend him thus all this fantasy and skullduggery.

I cannot fathom why, with all of these confessions, the D just doesn’t let RA plead guilty and end it all. The only thing I can come up with is that they have lost their way and twisted it around so badly that they made this about them and not about RA.

It makes no sense.

I’m beginning to think that we may actually see a Guilty plea.

MOO

 

[Vern]

With great respect, I think we may be talking about two diff things. I am NOT commenting on the overall lack of ruling / ruling against her removal. I am not even looking at why the motion was invalid.

I am ONLY pointing out the the SCOIN agreed with the D that JG failed to rule within the time she should have.

I can’t keep trying to explain my point. I’m sad. I feel I’m usually much better at expressing myself in writing and didn’t imagine I had failed so hard here. Again though, thanks for the discussion.

I am hopefully now off to enjoy the weekend. I hope you are too!

In all fairness, here's the text (bolding, colour and italisis by me):

According to T.R. 53.1(A), if a trial judge fails to rule on a motion or set the motion
for a hearing within 30 days, the cause may be withdrawn from the trial court.

The word may is not equal to will. To turn the may into an actual removal, further consideration would actually delve into whether or not the judge was justified in missing the 30 day deadline (there are exceptions and legally allowable reasons for non-response as already pointed out (Ie: the filing of repetetive motions seeking same thing). SCOIN did not even look at the reasons why the Judge missed her deadline - or whether or not she erred in doing so - because the defence repeatedly continued to file motions vice the required praecipe.

Here's what the SCOIN cited for the reason that RA had no relief:

Similarly, the benefit of Trial Rules 53.1 or 53.2 may be waived where the deadline
for a ruling has passed, but rather than filing a praecipe to withdraw the cause,
a party files pleadings or otherwise takes voluntary action of record inconsistent with
that party's right to invoke those rules. See generally Board of Medical Registration v.
Turner, 241 Ind. 73, 77-78, 168 N.E.2d 193, 195 (1960)(applying a predecessor rule).

With this they are literally pointing out that the Defence Team (not the Judge) messed up and was wrong with what they filed (more motions rather than the praecipe).

Nothing in SCOIN's ruling states that the Judge did in fact err in missing the deadlines (because the D Team messed up in ther filings and negated their own Franks Motions, SCOIN didn't even look that far). It does state that the Defence erred in their filings. And, we all know now as previously discussed that the filing of repetetive motions on same topic are one of the exceptions to requiring a Judge to respond in 30 days ... or at all.

I'm pretty certain that this ruling would/will hold up for/if any future appeals (ie: should RA be convicted) too, IMO, precisely because SCOIN had already ruled to keep Judge Gull on the case. Then the D Team, once re-instated, started firing in the Franks --- so Gull has probably covered her butt already with a simple "this has already been ruled upon (by SCOIN whose earlier decision kept her on the case) and nothing has changed since that ruling, so these Franks are repetitive thus require no response from me" arguement upon any appeal that may happen in the future.

2024-07-19 - Notice of Chief Administrative Officer's Determination Pursuant to Trial Rule 53.1E.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[susane7]

At this point I'm just hoping the pretrial evidentiary hearings happen as scheduled.

Me too. I think the defense don't want the hearings because it is likey that Judge Gull will stop the odinist theory. They want to file more motions about the "odinists".


I am remembering wrongly or the judge also still doesn't decide about a motion from the prosecution? The one the prosecution asked for the court to order the defense to say which confessions were coerced.

 

[sunshineray]

Me too. I think the defense don't want the hearings because it is likey that Judge Gull will stop the odinist theory. They want to file more motions about the "odinists".


I am remembering wrongly or the judge also still doesn't decide about a motion from the prosecution? The one the prosecution asked for the court to order the defense to say which confessions were coerced.

Ohh I missed that one. Do you by chance have a link to that? I'm horrible at trying to find these motions unless someone posts a pdf. I can find the court docket on MyCase but don't know where the actual documents are posted. TIA if you can help.