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

[photographer4]

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

Will they also ask BP if she made any statements to LE as to who she thought may have done this? Not sure what to expect here - not really followed trials to date. Only a few I am a bit familiar with but mostly from news vs forums such as this.

 

[sunshineray]

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)

Because that's what the judge already ruled. The D can do an offer of proof to secure the info on the record for appeals

 

[sunshineray]

Will they also ask BP if she made any statements to LE as to who she thought may have done this? Not sure what to expect here - not really followed trials to date. Only a few I am a bit familiar with but mostly from news vs forums such as this.

I'm revising...

Doubt it, that they should ask BP that. Nothing will surprise at this point though with this defense

 

[PrairieWind]

Because that what the judge already ruled. The D can do an offer of proof to secure the info on the record for appeals

It is better to just allow the defense to be presented at trial.

 

[sunshineray]

It is better to just allow the defense to be presented at trial.

I don't believe so. I agree with the judge's ruling.

 

[acehard]

Think. Rest. Keep a diary!
;0)

No internet for a month?!

 

[TTF14]

It is better to just allow the defense to be presented at trial.

I need this explained to me like I’m five. Why is some evidence ok for an appeal but not for the original trial, when it’s known well in advance of the trial? Meaning it’s not
Newly found evidence after a conviction?

JMOAC

 

[Vaderman]

I need this explained to me like I’m five. Why is some evidence ok for an appeal but not for the original trial, when it’s known well in advance of the trial? Meaning it’s not
Newly found evidence after a conviction?

JMOAC

Maybe the judge is so convinced in the strength of the defense she doesn't think it'll need to be appealed because he'll be acquitted? MOO

 

[katydid23]

Tells me they followed the gag order imposed on them by JG.

Wondering if the state ever figured out whose hair was found in AW’s hand?

Moooooooooooo

The gag order does not prohibit them from discussing evidence in court filings. Look at all the salacious and controversial stuff packed into the many Frank's motions.

And what about all the motions to suppress , where they listed all of the reasons for the charges to be dropped?

Wouldn't this 'bombshell' be a big reason that should have been listed? It would not be against the gag order.

If this ends up being a red herring it will really hurt the D's credibility with everyone, including the jurors. IMO

 

[Sillybilly]

Please stop posting specifics from other cases. It ends up causing confusion and extra work for Mods to clean up.

Thank you.

 

[sunshineray]

I need this explained to me like I’m five. Why is some evidence ok for an appeal but not for the original trial, when it’s known well in advance of the trial? Meaning it’s not
Newly found evidence after a conviction?

JMOAC

Because it's been ruled inadmissible by the judge for reasons stated. She also ruled the D could put it on the trial record to preserve it for later appeals IF RA is convicted. That doesn't mean if shown to an appeals court they will think it's admissible either.

 

[sunshineray]

Maybe the judge is so convinced in the strength of the defense she doesn't think it'll need to be appealed because he'll be acquitted? MOO

She's just preserving it for the record so D could show it at appeals. Doesn't guarantee it will convince anyone it has merit, whe/if that time comes.

 

[photographer4]

Maybe the judge is so convinced in the strength of the defense she doesn't think it'll need to be appealed because he'll be acquitted? MOO

Were this the case, could she not just flatly dismiss with prejudice (I think means can’t be brought back again?). Genuinely asking as I ain’t a lawyer!

 

[tlcya]

I need this explained to me like I’m five. Why is some evidence ok for an appeal but not for the original trial, when it’s known well in advance of the trial? Meaning it’s not
Newly found evidence after a conviction?

JMOAC

it is not okay for an appeal but not a trial. My understanding is, the judge ruled they cannot use the defense at trial. Their wish to use it at trial will be a part of the official record as will any proffers of proof to substantiate it's validity as a defense will be entered (outside the jury's presence). This is happening in order to preserve the record in case the defendant wants to appeal JG's decision not to allow it in.

It is not that it is appropriate for the appeal court but not he lower court. It is just that appeal court is where that will probably argued later as one of the reasons DT will request the judgment made by this court be overturned.

 

[Ravenmoon]

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

IMO, there is a good chance that will backfire!
It could lead the jury to the conclusion that he is even more demented.
The thought just creeps me out and angers me.


JMO

 

[photographer4]

The gag order does not prohibit them from discussing evidence in court filings. Look at all the salacious and controversial stuff packed into the many Frank's motions.

And what about all the motions to suppress , where they listed all of the reasons the charges to be dropped?

Wouldn't this 'bombshell' be a big reason that should have been listed? It would not be against the gag order.

If this ends up being a red herring it will really hurt the D's credibility with everyone, including the jurors. IMO

Yes I had forgotten they can file whatever in motions without it being a gag violation. Sure does make me wonder if the evidence shows it was RA or if the state has made it FIT RA. Moooo.

 

[tlcya]

Yes I had forgotten they can file whatever in motions without it being a gag violation. Sure does make me wonder if the evidence shows it was RA or if the state has made it FIT RA. Moooo.

how exactly would the state make a hair "fit" RA if it indeed does not "fit" or belong to RA?

Did the defense team not bring up the hair recently in court? I've not heard the prosecution bringing it up. If, as I suspect, it seems unrelated to the murders or has been identified as transfer from earlier in the day, I don't see the state even bringing it up in trial. But you can bet the DT will because their argument will be "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" MOO

 

[m00c0w]

There is a lot of misinterpreting the recent order… JG explicitly states that the defense can incorporate the evidence offered at the 8/1 hearing into an offer of proof at trial. Nothing more, nothing less. She already ruled that she would be willing to hear an offer of proof at trial when she granted the states motion in limine. This just allows the defense to present the same evidence that was at the 8/1 hearing during said offer of proof during trial - basically some light housekeeping.

Odinism is not in. Third party defense is not in. The defense can use certain evidence to argue against the state’s objections at trial.

offer of proof

www.law.cornell.edu

All my opinion.

 

[arielilane]

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?????

My guess is that tv's are removed and there is no wifi access. No telephones/cell phones allowed. In case of an emergency I supposed there is something in place for that. No newspapers, magazines, hotel magazine materials or anything which would expose them to outside influence. They must be kept isolated. jmo

 

[katydid23]

My guess is that tv's are removed and there is no wifi access. No telephones/cell phones allowed. In case of an emergency I supposed there is something in place for that. No newspapers, magazines, hotel magazine materials or anything which would expose them to outside influence. They must be kept isolated. jmo

In previous cases, the hotel has reprogrammed TVs, like you can do with Parental Controls----and they will allow sports stations, and a few other options that do NOT have news shows on them. Like Reality TV type channels, OLD MOVIE stations, etc etc

There has to be something for jurors to watch at night. They'd go stir crazy otherwise. But if they can watch wildlife Documentaries, Reality Tv, BaseBall Playoffs, Football, etc, and read books and play board games with each other, it might be a nice little vacation from home life.