GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #218

[Megnut]

The Delphi Murders: The State's Response to Motion to Correct Error

Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland filed his response to Richard Allen's trial team's motion to correct error. Pre-order our book on Delphi...

murdersheetpodcast.com

15 m
KG refers to the Defense motion as "not a serious motion", "frankly a waste of everyone's time -- our time (TMS), your time (listeners), McL's time..."


19m
KG says McL did a great job with this filing but that it's "as if a scientist had to write a lengthy explanation to a child as to why there are no monsters under his bed" for having to take seriously ridiculous claims raised by the Defense...

 

[Megnut]

The Delphi Murders: The State's Response to Motion to Correct Error

Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland filed his response to Richard Allen's trial team's motion to correct error. Pre-order our book on Delphi...

murdersheetpodcast.com

21m

TMS don't think Gull will grant a hearing (because there's no merit).

They speak highly of the appelate lawyers, describe the appeal process far less "sexy" than trials because it's all technical.

AC says she doesn't know what it is about this case but it's like a cursed object ...where half of the people who come into contact with it Lose Their Minds. [Ha!] She's relieved that ADULTS will be handling this from here on out.

 

[Megnut]

The Delphi Murders: The State's Response to Motion to Correct Error

Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland filed his response to Richard Allen's trial team's motion to correct error. Pre-order our book on Delphi...

murdersheetpodcast.com

Footnote

22m
KG says he didn't know the trial Defense attorneys but heard that they were very good, excellent trial attorneys. Both TMS said that wasn't their experience of them. KG found them "ill-prepared, out of their depth and clearly lacked an understanding of the actual facts of the case..."but a lot of confidence in themselves."

 

[FrostedGlass]

I wonder if NM smirked at any point when he was composing this response. I know I would have for sure.

The video of BW is just more of the same dud of a bombshell just like the hair in AW’s hand prior to trial. NM said it best, it was there for the taking all along yet they chose to try & impeach BW improperly & now wish to seemingly try to change their strategy post trial & use that as a reason for retrial. Seems like they’re almost trying to be ineffective intentionally.

MOO

MOO
Regarding the part I highlighted. Probably not when he realized the "Chronic" citation.

If they had been able to get the FBI fellow in to testify, that would have been proper. Although, I think impeachment doesn't matter much in many cases.

 

[tlcya]

McLeland called on the court to reject the defense motion.

“The simplest answer is that a Motion to Correct Error only applies to newly discovered evidence,” he said. “From the Defense’s own admissions this is not newly discovered evidence but rather evidence they had been provided long before trial.”
Prosecutors Challenge Convicted Delphi Killer’s Attempt to Vacate Guilty Verdict as ‘Zero Evidence’

 

[Megnut]

The Delphi Murders: The State's Response to Motion to Correct Error

Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland filed his response to Richard Allen's trial team's motion to correct error. Pre-order our book on Delphi...

murdersheetpodcast.com

27 discuss the claim about legal representation. KG points out the filing there were no affidavits from RA or that attorney. KS goes as far to call their claim BS. McL response has an attachment showing the attorney was not representing RA. TMS talk about the dishonesty in the Defense filing.

30-40 minutes, all about the safe-keeping order and discussion of "critical stages", all covered in McL's response

41 discussion of BW and the van. Problems with timestamps, wasn't new discovery.

I lost track of times but they cover the alleged confession ascribed to RL. Doesn't fit the facts.

I find them balanced, informative, and quotable. Their commentary is IMO good stuff.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

MOO
Regarding the part I highlighted. Probably not when he realized the "Chronic" citation.

If they had been able to get the FBI fellow in to testify, that would have been proper. Although, I think impeachment doesn't matter much in many cases.

Chronic citation didn’t seem to concern him too much, as it appears the defense is once again attempting to misrepresent things.

From my understanding just trying to do so with the agent was what was improper in the first place or he’d have been allowed to testify. It’s a moot point anyway, as BW didn’t arrive home as the defense was originally trying to make it out to be by using a statement which had been corrected/revised/changed since the point when the agent was involved. Who knows what else was in discovery supporting the state which did not come up during trial.

MOO

ETA first sentence

 

[tlcya]

Response to MTCE

Well reasoned - articulate - factual. As I, and many others, expected. A concise legal argument as to why nothing contained in the MTCE was new, earth shattering, or errors on the part of the trial court. I agree with Nick McLenand, the RL alleged confession to RD portion was an effort by defense to circumvent their burden as to 3rd party (SODDI) motive which they failed abysmally to meet. That is no error. That is defense Monday morning quarterbacking their own game strategy and trying to get a do over. MOO and the State of Indiana's

 

[MassGuy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1887164101815673246

 

[Megnut]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1887164101815673246

Stark.

Damn.

They were alive. Laughing and snapchatting and embarking on adolescence...

Until HE showed up.

A child's phone, wet and half-buried in leaves. A phone that eventually died too.

But there it is, in full support of the State's case. Wet, dirty, landed where it lay when Abby was murdered. The photos make real how especially false the Defense's claims were.

JMO

 

[Yemelyan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1887164101815673246

Glad to have this brought forward. With this, I think I've seen all I need to see on the topic of the phone.

 

[MassGuy]

Glad to have this brought forward. With this, I think I've seen all I need to see on the topic of the phone.

It was so utterly stupid to begin with, but this does offer a solid explanation.

 

[justtrish]

It was so utterly stupid to begin with, but this does offer a solid explanation.

I agree and I'm shocked that it even was mentioned at trial. I think to suggest that a murderer was coming back to the woods at some point to put headphones into a phone, but not actually using it because it didn't move.. no listening to music or playing games.. just came back to plug in headphones for a few hours and then unplug them and leave the area, while people were out looking for the very people the phone belonged to.

I understand defending a client, but when something doesn't even make 1 % logical sense, it really looks desperate when it's then introduced. They had no explanation for it, why would a killer do that? How could it be done without moving the phone?

Then again one of the defense lawyers also said he would "dumb down" something for the potential jurors during selection. I don't think the jury needed anything dumbed down.

 

[Megnut]

It was so utterly stupid to begin with, but this does offer a solid explanation.

And fully supports why the expert didn't need ever to see the actual phone. He had the data and the photographs. He could see the condition of the phone as it was collected.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

And fully supports why the expert didn't need ever to see the actual phone. He had the data and the photographs. He could see the condition of the phone as it was collected.

JMO

If my memory serves correctly, either the defense’s expert or JA alluded to the phone port "had clearly been manipulated" (my paraphrase) by someone else.

 

[INfisherman]

I agree and I'm shocked that it even was mentioned at trial. I think to suggest that a murderer was coming back to the woods at some point to put headphones into a phone, but not actually using it because it didn't move.. no listening to music or playing games.. just came back to plug in headphones for a few hours and then unplug them and leave the area, while people were out looking for the very people the phone belonged to.

I understand defending a client, but when something doesn't even make 1 % logical sense, it really looks desperate when it's then introduced. They had no explanation for it, why would a killer do that? How could it be done without moving the phone?

Then again one of the defense lawyers also said he would "dumb down" something for the potential jurors during selection. I don't think the jury needed anything dumbed down.

Desperation to open the door for 3rd party involvement. Almost every witness, though I cannot say all, that they called to the stand had at least one question implying, directly or indirectly, of the possibility of someone else being at or near the scene of the crime.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

It's interesting that the D managed to publicise everything else about the case but never included in any of its Franks and motion to dismiss epics the alleged RL confession ...

MS also confirmed in the latest episode that it was not raised at the 3 day hearing where they made some bare bones arguments about RL for SODDI.

Why did they sit on this?

 

[justtrish]

If my memory serves correctly, either the defense’s expert or JA alluded to the phone port "had clearly been manipulated" (my paraphrase) by someone else.

Sounds like the defense's expert or JA are the ones that need something dumbed down for them. lol

 

[Boxer]

It's interesting that the D managed to publicise everything else about the case but never included in any of its Franks and motion to dismiss epics the alleged RL confession ...

MS also confirmed in the latest episode that it was not raised at the 3 day hearing where they made some bare bones arguments about RL for SODDI.

Why did they sit on this?

They must know the alleged confession of RL is easily refuted, and saved it to use it by as basis for an appeal, as a evidence problem, without having to expose it to scrutiny.

 

[Boxer]

There is more to where RL was during the crime. MOO assume police have some video between RLs home and the Lafayette fish store, also I believe he stopped for a beer on the way back fromLafayette.
MOO The search of his property was based on tbe idea of him being an accomplice or an abettor.