Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #199

[photographer4]

A gag order doesn't prohibit them from making arguments mentioning the hair in court filings. I'm sure the state has an explanation, as the defense would have used the lack of one to their advantage in pushing for a dismissal.

I’d forgotten they can say whatever in filings without it breaching the gag! Ty.

 

[tlcya]

The judge has just granted third party defence alibi is now admissible. He’s going to get acquitted isn’t she?

while I think the trial will be a 3 ring circus of a poo show if that is true, I have faith that the prosecution will present evidence that prevents acquittal.

ETA Is there a link to this information about 3rd party defense being allowed? Has anyone got a copy of hte order or docket entry saying that?

 

[Kittybunny]

The judge has just granted third party defence alibi is now admissible. He’s going to get acquitted isn’t she?

Is there a link to this info?

 

[Purdue19]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Gall has granted the motion to incorporate evidence from the August 1st pretrial hearing into Offer of Proof at Trial, without an additional hearing.

The 12 media passes will be distributed to "representatives of the Delphi Trial Media Coalition", which is put together by Cyndee Hebert from WTHR.

edit for clarification

 

[TTF14]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Gall has granted the motion to incorporate evidence from the August 1st pretrial hearing, without an additional hearing.

The 12 media passes will be distributed to "representatives of the Delphi Trial Media Coalition", which is put together by Cyndee Hebert from WTHR.

View attachment 538110View attachment 538111

Does this mean they can actually present their original SODDI defense as described in the Franks memo? Or does this mean something else like she will let them present it to her for reconsideration? I realize that may be a stupid question, but before I get my hopes up, I’d love clarification.

As always, JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

deleted that tweet as the reporter offers clarity in a follow up posted below.

 

[Warwick7]

Q: because they’re sequestered, have the tvs typically found in hotel rooms been removed ahead of time from their rooms to prevent them accessing the nightly news on this case? Many such tvs are “smart” as well, so wifi connected with access to Spotify / YouTube / Internet which would defeat the purpose of sequestration imo. So what will the jurors be doing while sequestered and not in the courtroom?????

Think. Rest. Keep a diary!
;0)

 

[PrairieWind]

I don’t think it’s even that. Even hair without roots can be used to develop a strong profile. I think they would have made mention of this in a filing “…victim had unidentified human hair in her hand.”

We will see what this hair is soon of course. But if it is a human hair in her hand that doesn't match the Defendant, if I was the Defense attorney, I would not have raised it in motions. There isn't much point in doing so. You aren't going to get a dismissal. I'd hold it and spring it at trial.

 

[MassGuy]

Does this mean they can actually present their original SODDI defense as described in the Franks memo? Or does this mean something else like she will let them present it to her for reconsideration? I realize that may be a stupid question, but before I get my hopes up, I’d love clarification.

As always, JMO.

She just clarified.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1846607365245731057

 

[TTF14]

Think. Rest. Keep a diary!
;0)

If not for the sad reason, a forced month-long technology and work break sounds rather lovely.

As always, JMO.

 

[Purdue19]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Gall has granted the motion to incorporate evidence from the August 1st pretrial hearing, without an additional hearing.

The 12 media passes will be distributed to "representatives of the Delphi Trial Media Coalition", which is put together by Cyndee Hebert from WTHR.

View attachment 538110View attachment 538111

Who does Indiana law consider media?

Indiana Code Section 34-46-4-1

Sec 1. This chapter applies to the following persons:

(1) any person connected with, or any person who has been connected with or employed by:

(A) a newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals and having a general circulation; or

(B) a recognized press association or wire service;

as a bona fide owner, editorial or reportorial employee, who receives or has received income from legitimate gathering, writing, editing and interpretation of news; and

(2) any person connected with a licensed radio or television station as owner, official, or as an editorial or reportorial employee who receives or has received income from legitimate gathering, writing, editing, interpreting, announcing or broadcasting of news.

 

[TTF14]

She just clarified.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1846607365245731057

Thank you.

 

[photographer4]

We will see what this hair is soon of course. But if it is a human hair in her hand that doesn't match the Defendant, if I was the Defense attorney, I would not have raised it in motions. There isn't much point in doing so. You aren't going to get a dismissal. I'd hold it and spring it at trial.

I feel like they’re introducing reasonable doubt right out of the gate. I would too if I were them! Moo.

 

[TTF14]

Why would SODDI be allowed for appeals and not the trial? Has anyone ever seen something similar in any other trial? Would JG be the judge for an appeal? If so, isn’t the fact she is allowing it for appeal acknowledging its legitimacy?

As always, JMOAC (just my opinion and confusion)

 

[mrjitty]

I saw this really good point made about the hair allegedly found in Abby’s hand. The defense brought this up during Voir Dire, and not in any of their filings, to include their motion to dismiss.

That tells us all we need to know.

What a missed opportunity! Probably because it didn't fit with any of their suspects.

 

[sunshineray]

I imagine the D will tell the jurors a bit about RA as well - and I think they should. Mooo.

Yes, when it's their turn. They may also ask BP about RA giving her free pictures for effect too...to show what a thoughtful guy he is. JMO

 

[mrjitty]

We will see what this hair is soon of course. But if it is a human hair in her hand that doesn't match the Defendant, if I was the Defense attorney, I would not have raised it in motions. There isn't much point in doing so. You aren't going to get a dismissal. I'd hold it and spring it at trial.

It's quite interesting what they didn't put in the Franks, IMO

 

[photographer4]

If not for the sad reason, a forced month-long technology and work break sounds rather lovely.

As always, JMO.

Not to me! I love my devices!

 

[sunshineray]

The judge has just granted third party defence alibi is now admissible. He’s going to get acquitted isn’t she?

It's only admissible for offer of proof outside the presence of the jury...on the record for appeals

 

[photographer4]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed by the member>

I’m confused - originally didn’t she rule he can’t use SODDI / odinists named in their original filings? Has something changed??