Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #210

[girlhasnoname]

Judges are paid by the state, in the courts of that state, and are part of the judiciary branch of that state. How is that not a state actor?

State Actor Definition | Law Insider


I'm not sure what your quote of our Model Rules of Professional Conduct is for. That is simply the standard judges should hold themselves to.

Applies also the Defense Attorneys (big fail there) and the State's Attorneys.

JMO

 

[minor4th]

@minor4th

Could the D be simply "going through the motions" during this trial knowing JG just isn’t going to allow their "Big O" theory in hopes of being able to use it in the court of appeals? I ask due to my own ignorance regarding specifics of the appeal process. Surely it’s not a guarantee & not that simple is it? TIA

ETA correct punctuation

I think they are doing their very best within the limitations the judge has imposed on them. But you can bet they are being vigilant about preserving the record for appeal and won’t be surprised by a guilty verdict. On some of the rulings, I think they have a better-than-average at winning an appeal.

 

[FrostedGlass]

RSBM for focus. What makes you think that? How would Baldwin have known in advance that the witness was going to give an unexpected response?

Maybe they tried to serve the subpoena earlier and were unsuccessful; Baldwin wasn't taking any chances of that happening again. MOO

Coincidence, irony or just blatant overacting similar to slapping a subpoena on the stand after a witness has given unexpected responses?

 

[minor4th]

The defense was asked to provide actual proof of connections in a multiple day hearing and they couldn't. Nothing has changed since then, so their pet approach is still off the table.

But they did - in their response to the State’s motion in limine and at the hearing. Todd Click and another LEO gave some good testimony about the third party suspects. But it’s impossible to say exactly what happened at the hearing because it wasn’t streamed/recorded, and there weren’t a lot of reporters keeping eyes on the case at that point.

 

[INfisherman]

I think they are doing their very best within the limitations the judge has imposed on them. But you can bet they are being vigilant about preserving the record for appeal and won’t be surprised by a guilty verdict. On some of the rulings, I think they have a better-than-average *advertiser censored* at winning an appeal.

Thank you for your insight. By winning an appeal do you mean being granted a trial for appeal or winning a trial in the court of appeals? Apologies, just want to make sure I have it clear in my head. TIA

 

[minor4th]

Genuine question. Do you not know (on a map) where it’s alleged he parked or something entirely different?

I think that is in dispute.

 

[minor4th]

Thank you for your insight. By winning an appeal do you mean being granted a trial for appeal or winning a trial in the court of appeals? Apologies, just want to make sure I have it clear in my head. TIA

Winning an appeal = overturning a conviction and probably a new trial within parameters the court of appeals would set.

 

[cherrybier]

The white van is one of those rumors that pre-date an arrest, so I'm not sure what a gag order has to do with anything. It was a local rumor and which made its way into online discussion forums and podcasts/videos which Wala admitted to participating in and watching/listening.

Was the white van the info "only the killer would know"? I need to find Wala's previous testimony at the 3-day hearing.

Something doesn't sit right with how the P have used the white van as their bombshell. I'm not seeing it imo.

 

[steeltowngirl]

The probable cause affidavit for RA’s arrest and the search of his home. The State has corrected some of the times listed in the affidavit as well as some of the substance.

Can you please provide the PCA errors and corrections? TIA

In the absence of cameras or audio available to the public, we are woefully reliant on media.

The public was allowed to attend the trial in person.

I have wondered if the SCOIN may now be wondering if they made the right decision. Moo.

Agree. They should have allowed the replacement of B&R with L&S

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

SCOIN has made rulings. For instance, they ruled that Gull removed the defense attorneys without authority - and reinstated the defense team, despite Gull trying to get rid of them.

And the SCOIN also ruled no evidence of bias towards RA or R&B and declined their request for her recusal.

 

[cherrybier]

RSBM for focus. What makes you think that? How would Baldwin have known in advance that the witness was going to give an unexpected response?

Maybe they tried to serve the subpoena earlier and were unsuccessful; Baldwin wasn't taking any chanced of that happening again. MOO

Yeah it was typed up and ready. So maybe they'd tried to serve him at various points, and couldn't.

 

[iamshadow21]

But they did - in their response to the State’s motion in limine and at the hearing. Todd Click and another LEO gave some good testimony about the third party suspects. But it’s impossible to say exactly what happened at the hearing because it wasn’t streamed/recorded, and there weren’t a lot of reporters keeping eyes on the case at that point.

This isn't true, I've seen transcripts from those hearings posted repeatedly to these threads.

EDIT: Here's a link to a post with some of them.

Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #195

EDIT: And here's a link to an article which has a link to a transcript of the testimony of Click, Holder, Mullin and others. It's all there, word for word.

READ: 3/18 Delphi Hearing Transcript, Police Officer Testifies to Other Potential Suspects

ALLEN COUNTY, Ind. -- The transcript of the March 18th Delphi murders case hearing is now publicly available.

wibc.com

 

[minor4th]

There is a legal standard required in order to submit your theory of what happened into evidence. You cannot just make allegations against someone, publicly accusing them of murder, unless there is at least a slight possibility it could be true.

If the suspect you are accusing, has no alibi, has some nexus to the crime, and could be shown to be in the area at the time of the murder, you can use them as your SODDI defense. Go for it.

But if it is too far fetched, AS IN the suspect has a solid alibi, could not have been at the crime scene at the key time, has no connection whatsoever, then it cannot be brought to the jury for deliberation. It is a waste of everyone's time.

That’s not really how it works. There’s not a mini trial to determine whether the defense can prove their theory - the judge wouldn’t consider whether the third party has an alibi, for instance.

The defense would have to make a prima facie showing that a third party has a connection to the crime. For example, if a third party made a confession or made incriminating statements, that would be enough evidence to let the defense point to that third party. And that is what happened in this case by at least one third party potential suspect.

These were not just bald allegations made by the defense.

 

[minor4th]

This isn't true, I've seen transcripts from those hearings posted repeatedly to these threads.

There is not a complete transcript - there are only transcripts the defense ordered from some of the witness testimony (mostly State’s witnesses). We don’t know what else happened at those hearings. So you don’t actually know what you think you know.

 

[cherrybier]

That’s not really how it works. There’s not a mini trial to determine whether the defense can prove their theory - the judge wouldn’t consider whether the third party has an alibi, for instance.

The defense would have to make a prima facie showing that a third party has a connection to the crime. For example, if a third party made a confession or made incriminating statements, that would be enough evidence to let the defense point to that third party. And that is what happened in this case by at least one third party potential suspect.

These were not just bald allegations made by the defense.

Yeah I was going to ask, how would the Judge know about a particular alibi without looking into it, which as you said would require a mini trial to go over that, and whatever legs the defenses allegations hold.

It seems a bit weak procedurally if a defense team has a strong stance about xyz but somebody has an alibi, and their case is not allowed in.

How does anyone know how vetted the alibi was/is?

 

[girlhasnoname]

But they did - in their response to the State’s motion in limine and at the hearing. Todd Click and another LEO gave some good testimony about the third party suspects. But it’s impossible to say exactly what happened at the hearing because it wasn’t streamed/recorded, and there weren’t a lot of reporters keeping eyes on the case at that point.

The same Todd Click that was arrested for lying and manipulating Child Protection Services Orders? Yeah, it's gonna be a hard pass for me to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of Todd Click wanna be famous solver of the Delphi Murder Case.

There were transcripts of those Hearing that occurred in August so it was actually recorded.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

There is not a complete transcript - there are only transcripts the defense ordered from some of the witness testimony (mostly State’s witnesses). We don’t know what else happened at those hearings. So you don’t actually know what you think you know.

I've provided you with links above. Accept it or don't, I'm not going to argue with you.

 

[minor4th]

The same Todd Click that was arrested for lying and manipulating Child Protection Services Orders? Yeah, it's gonna be a hard pass for me to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of Todd Click wanna be famous solver of the Delphi Murder Case.

There were transcripts of those Hearing that occurred in August so it was actually recorded.

JMO

Same Todd Click. And yeah, his credibility is now destroyed for trial purposes, but his testimony at the hearing was backed up by records from what I read.

 

[MiniMoo]

Attorneys or Lawyers

"mere presence at the scene of a crime is usually not enough to establish guilt."

Question 1: Is this standard throughout the USA or worldwide when it comes to law?

So, this I feel means if someone is present at a crime scene - it doesn't necessarily mean they committed the crime and therefore aren't guilty of anything just by being there.

Question 2: From a legal standpoint what do you know or understand of this wording, if you don't mind, and is this something that we should all be thinking about seriously whether an attorney or not?

JMO MOO JMT

 

[minor4th]

I've provided you with links above. Accept it or don't, I'm not going to argue with you.

I’ve read all of them. You’ll notice those are just transcripts of a handful of witnesses’ testimony, not full transcripts and not even full testimony.