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

[Melted]

1. Media Restrictions





• Jurors are not allowed to access television, radio, newspapers, or the internet to avoid exposure to any information about the case. They are prohibited from engaging with any news programming or media that could indirectly reveal details about the trial.


• Controlled access to specific media, such as movies or books, may be allowed, but these are screened by the court to ensure they are unrelated to the case.





2. Communication Restrictions





• Jurors cannot discuss the case with anyone, including other jurors, until the official deliberations begin. This helps to prevent any premature opinions or biases.


• They are prohibited from discussing the trial with anyone outside of the jury, such as family or friends. Communication with outsiders is closely monitored, and any attempts to influence or contact jurors regarding the case are punishable.





3. Electronic Device and Internet Use





• The use of electronic devices like smartphones, computers, or tablets is restricted or prohibited. This rule prevents jurors from accessing any information about the trial through online searches or other digital means.





4. Social Interaction Restrictions





• Jurors must avoid social settings where conversations about the trial could occur. If they encounter a situation where the case might be discussed, they are instructed to remove themselves or report the situation.


• They are also discouraged from attending events where they could be approached or influenced by outside individuals regarding the trial.





5. Physical Monitoring and Housing





• If the jury is fully sequestered, they may stay at a hotel, and their activities and interactions are monitored by court officials or bailiffs. They are escorted to and from the courtroom to prevent exposure to external influences.





6. Limited Leisure Activities





• Jurors may be allowed some leisure activities, such as watching movies or reading, but only after the materials are vetted by the court to ensure they do not relate to the trial. Controlled outdoor activities may also be permitted, but jurors cannot engage in any behavior that risks exposure to trial-related information.

 

[arielilane]

In Delphi murders case: Judge Gull allows Richard Allen's attorneys to incorporate evidence from an Aug. 1 hearing about a third-party theory for the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German into attempts to revive old Norse/Odinist ritualistic killing angle at the trial. 1/




Judge tossed third party references, ruling this summer that Richard Allen’s attorneys provided speculation but not admissible evidence of an Odinist, cult killing of Abby and Libby. Judge left room for 'evidence to support an offer of proof at the trial.'

https://twitter.com/x/status/1846604684066513360

Not unexpected, but for good measure, one final rejection from Judge Gull for cameras/recording in the Carroll Circuit Court for the Delphi murders trial. Courtroom decorum order continues: No phones, no laptops, no smart watches, no Google glasses (no kidding), no electronics.

 

[Trebor5591]

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

I can't understand how the hair found in Abby's hand can be unrelated to the murder. A 13-year old's hand is in constant motion, touching things, etc., and any hair the hand comes in to contact with would quickly fall off. For there to be a hair found on her hand (I assumed her hands were bagged quickly at the scene), it makes sense that it is related to the murder somehow. They were found in an isolated location, so the hair did not come from an innocent bystander--since there were none. JMO But we shall see soon enough.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I can't understand how the hair found in Abby's hand can be unrelated to the murder. A 13-year old's hand is in constant motion, touching things, etc., and any hair the hand comes in to contact with would quickly fall off. For there to be a hair found on her hand (I assumed her hands were bagged quickly at the scene), it makes sense that it is related to the murder somehow. They were found in an isolated location, so the hair did not come from an innocent bystander--since there were none. JMO But we shall see soon enough.

But, please remember that the jacket she was wearing came from Kelsi.
Kelsi was a teenager with her own car.
I used to be a teenager once, ( no really!) and in my experience, teens with a car transport peers often.

Teens LOVE their hair and brush it all of the time . Having it fall on the jacket is reasonable.

If her hands had blood or the hair somehow was in the sleeve, it easily could have stuck to her hand or ended up there.

Remember, her hands were in fists inside of the jacket ( like kids do when it's cold outside)


JMO

 

[tlcya]

I can't understand how the hair found in Abby's hand can be unrelated to the murder. A 13-year old's hand is in constant motion, touching things, etc., and any hair the hand comes in to contact with would quickly fall off. For there to be a hair found on her hand (I assumed her hands were bagged quickly at the scene), it makes sense that it is related to the murder somehow. They were found in an isolated location, so the hair did not come from an innocent bystander--since there were none. JMO But we shall see soon enough.

wasn't Abby at one point undressed and then redressed? That is how IMO. possible transfer from an article of clothing. in a frightened rush attempting to dress and not anger the man holding a gun and or knife on her. A hair gets caught in her fingernail. possible transfer from Libby. I can think of a hundred reasons and ways a hair on a victim's hand could be from non crime related contact with said hair.

<modsnip - snarky>

Yes we shall see.

 

[shonyakay]

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

The Defense didn't present any reliable evidence in regards to the third party's they were trying to use as their "Some other dude did it" defense.

Judge Gull is giving the defense team another opportunity to present such evidence to her at the trial but not in the presence of the Jury.

My question is, is if they have such evidence, why didn't they already present it at the first opportunity?

 

[katydid23]

I can't understand how the hair found in Abby's hand can be unrelated to the murder. A 13-year old's hand is in constant motion, touching things, etc., and any hair the hand comes in to contact with would quickly fall off. For there to be a hair found on her hand (I assumed her hands were bagged quickly at the scene), it makes sense that it is related to the murder somehow. They were found in an isolated location, so the hair did not come from an innocent bystander--since there were none. JMO But we shall see soon enough.

The 13 yr old's hand had been taking various clothes on and off. The jacket was reportedly given to her to wear by KG, and from KG's car. So that jacket could easily have had hair left from others, even inside the sleeves.

It also may have come off of RA's clothing. We have no idea.

 

[Vern]

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.

Exactly.

Judge Gull is GRANTING the Defence Motion Without Hearing in order to reserve the record for appeal as per their request. The D's Motion to Incoroporate Evidence was already included in the threads. She is just GRANTING it.

So, NO CHANGE ... Also no change to the requirement that the present tangible 'proof' vice rumours etc that is actually admissable at trial. Same as before. As she's lready ruled on their previous 'evidence' of SODDI as not being admissable due to heresay etc, the Defence will have to come up with something concrete this time linking another(s) individuals to this crime in order to get SODDI in.

The Defence will still have the option to OFFER PROOF at trial and outside of the presece of the Jury.

Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 10/15/2024 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Stacey Lynn Diener;Jennifer Jones Auger;James David Luttrull Order Issued ---- 10/15/2024 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Stacey Lynn Diener;Jennifer Jones Auger;James David Luttrull​

Order Issued The Court, having had defendant's Motion to Incorporate Evidence Presented at the August 1st Pretrial Hearing into Offer of Proof at Trial, now grants the Motion without hearing. Defendant is authorized to incorporate the evidence admitted at the August 1, 2024 hearing on the State's Motion in Limine regarding alleged third party suspects and alleged connections to the Norse Pagan Religion and the Odin Religion as an offer of proof regarding the issue at trial for purposes of judicial economy. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 10/16/2024​

Order Issued The Court has received a Request for Recording of Court Proceedings by News Media from Erika Facey, WISH-TV, and denies same. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 10/16/2024​

Order Issued Pursuant to the Court's inherent authority to manage the Courtroom to ensure a fair trial and to ensure access to the public and the media, the Court issues this Addendum to the Decorum Order dated September 30, 2024, as follows: The Public and the Media are reminded that no food or beverages will be permitted in the Carroll Circuit Courtroom. The Public and the Media are reminded that no electronic devices of any kind are permitted in the Carroll County Courthouse during the pendency of the trial. Press passes to the trial will be distributed at 3:00 p.m. on October 17, 2024, in the Carroll Circuit Courtroom. The twelve (12) press passes will be provided to representatives of the Delphi Trial Media Coalition as organized by Cyndee Hebert, WTHR, [Vern's Edit to remove email address {Cyndee.Hebert@}] , on behalf of news media as defined in Indiana Code 34-46-4-1. Press who meets the I.C. 34-46-4-1 definition is invited to contact Ms. Hebert by e-mail to join their coalition to be part of the news pool. Disputes among media are previously addressed by the Court's September 30, 2024, Order. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 10/16/2024​

Order Issued Certificate of Appearance Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 10/16/2024​

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[justtrish]

Very good point. Whatever it is, it’s going to be way overblown.

We might never even hear about this hair again. That is how it goes sometimes. Let's say it was Libby's or Abby's.. why would anyone even need to state that in the trial.. we found a hair belonging to the girls at the crime scene.. well I'm sure there were lots of their hairs there. But by the defense stating a hair not belonging to RA was there.. well that is factually correct, but it doesn't mean his hair wasn't there and some other male hair was for some nefarious reason. Yet mentioning it like they did got the entire internet buzzing about the not RA hair. Maybe we never hear it mentioned again because it is nothing.

 

[photographer4]

The 13 yr old's hand had been taking various clothes on and off. The jacket was reportedly given to her to wear by KG, and from KG's car. So that jacket could easily have had hair left from others, even inside the sleeves.

It also may have come off of RA's clothing. We have no idea.

Do we know -- once RA was arrested, knowing they had this seemingly random / stray hair in AW's fist, did LE then test it against anyone else in RA's life? EG: his wife? Daughter? Is that something they'd be allowed to do or could these persons refuse and force the state to get a warrant for their DNA?

 

[iamshadow21]

Dbm

 

[photographer4]

Also, an interesting thing about the hair -- we know that during a mtg with RA, an officer told him, he knew RA was guilty and he was going to prove it.... it does NOT seem as though the officer mentioned the random / stray hair in AW's hand to RA as a means of proving it - he only mentioned the stray bullet they had at the scene. Why would he not mention the hair as solid evidence as well - if it was considered solid evidence that RA was there? No mention of it by the State in their PCA either... so it clearly didn't point to RA or anyone connected to him imo.....

'You're going down for this' Allen defense claims police were abusive during interview

Attorneys for the man accused in the Delphi killings filed a motion Monday to suppress Richard Allen's second statement to police.

www.wishtv.com

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

 

[SerialGal]

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)

I’m wondering this as well. If it’s legitimate, let it in for a trial so the risk of winning an appeal (if he’s really guilty) is mitigated. MOO.

 

[shonyakay]

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.

No, because first of all, that would be speculation. Secondly, I don't think they would have BP testify in regards to the pictures because she was not the one they were given to. Becky is the one who relayed the story but she was not the one RA actually gave the free pictures to, that was Tara (Libby's aunt).

 

[sunshineray]

Do we know -- once RA was arrested, knowing they had this seemingly random / stray hair in AW's fist, did LE then test it against anyone else in RA's life? EG: his wife? Daughter? Is that something they'd be allowed to do or could these persons refuse and force the state to get a warrant for their DNA?

We shall find out!

 

[sunshineray]

I’m wondering this as well. If it’s legitimate, let it in for a trial so the risk of winning an appeal (if he’s really guilty) is mitigated. MOO.

The judge ruled it wasn't legitimate for RA's trial, not admissible. None of the SODDI people can be tied to the crime scene, just RA

 

[SerialGal]

The judge ruled it wasn't legitimate for RA's trial, not admissible. None of the SODDI people can be tied to the crime scene, just RA

Thank you!

 

[photographer4]

The judge ruled it wasn't legitimate for RA's trial, not admissible. None of the SODDI people can be tied to the crime scene, just RA

Does her decision to allow an offer of proof at the trial mean she can change her mind just before the start of trial to allow that whole SODDI defense?

 

[Vern]

This one was already posted, but it is the Motion to Incorporate that today's GRANTED Order from Judge Gull references for those who missed the original motion from the Defence:

_Defendant’s Motion to Incorporate Evidence Presented At The August 1st Pre-Trial Hearing Into Offer of Proof at Trial.pdf

drive.google.com

_________
@Niner
16/10/24 GRANTED Defense Motion To Incorporate Evidence Presented at Trial

_Order on October 16, 2024.pdf

drive.google.com

16/10/24 Addendum to Courthouse Management and Decorum Order for Jury Trial

_Addendum to Courthouse Management and Decorum Order for Jury Trial October 18-November 15, 2024.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Warwick7]

The Defense didn't present any reliable evidence in regards to the third party's they were trying to use as their "Some other dude did it" defense.

Judge Gull is giving the defense team another opportunity to present such evidence to her at the trial but not in the presence of the Jury.

My question is, is if they have such evidence, why didn't they already present it at the first opportunity?

BBM
There isn't an opportunity at trial for odin information. It is for an appeal. When Allen is found guilty, this info may (or may not) be used in an appeal.