IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

[mrjitty]

Indeed. We even have Click telling MS and BMcD that nobody in LE thinks it was a ritual sacrifice, but that he basically agrees about the rest of it.

IMO it gets around the main problem the defence have, which is the Franks presents no evidence linking any of these guys to the crime. It's all propensity reasoning. The crime scene is occult. And it's odinist occult. And these guys are Odinists, therefore they did it.

If you take the supposed top suspect Holder - he has an alibi. There is no evidence someone else checked in at work for him. That is just wild speculation. Ditto the Elvis confession appears to be hearsay. It might not be able to be used to prove the truth of the content in my opinion.

So you zoom out one level. The investigators think this has legs and it was never completed.

IMO the risk is it ends up being a beauty competition between RA and the Odinists. In the jury's mind, if it wasn't the Odinists it must have been Rick.

And I guess this suggests no KAK. Because those investigations obviously were completed.

So maybe at trial we would see a lot of analysis of occult aspects of the crime scene, and a lot of digging in to the status of the investigation, and way less Odinist facebook stuff. Try to exploit interagency differences of opinion etc

 

[zh0r4]

IMO it gets around the main problem the defence have, which is the Franks presents no evidence linking any of these guys to the crime. It's all propensity reasoning. The crime scene is occult. And it's odinist occult. And these guys are Odinists, therefore they did it.

If you take the supposed top suspect Holder - he has an alibi. There is no evidence someone else checked in at work for him. That is just wild speculation. Ditto the Elvis confession appears to be hearsay. It might not be able to be used to prove the truth of the content in my opinion.

So you zoom out one level. The investigators think this has legs and it was never completed.

IMO the risk is it ends up being a beauty competition between RA and the Odinists. In the jury's mind, if it wasn't the Odinists it must have been Rick.

And I guess this suggests no KAK. Because those investigations obviously were completed.

So maybe at trial we would see a lot of analysis of occult aspects of the crime scene, and a lot of digging in to the status of the investigation, and way less Odinist facebook stuff. Try to exploit interagency differences of opinion etc

IMO detailed confessions to family members are not here-say. The D has a plethora of information in the FM. It is important to remember some LE believed others were involved, including suspects discussed in the FM.

One example,(p. 95-97 from FM)

Continuing the EF example. EF confessed to 2 different siblings who told LE. The reason EF’s official alibi is labeled as shady is:

(1) Due to its contradiction to RdA’s recollection of where he was with EF on the same date; According to RdA (per August 29, 2018 interview): EF, RdA, and NS were at a hospital in Muncie visiting a sick friend on February 13, 2017. RA stated he and EF had their phone with them. When LE told RdA they could then pull phone records to verify their whereabouts, RdA stated “hospitals cut cell reception on phones because they interfere with hospital equipment so their phones would probably not show they were at the hospital in Muncie.”

(2) Inactivity on EF’s phone for a total of 9 hours on February 13, 2018. EF states in his interview on June 20, 2018 that he was at his house in Rushville. EF stated in his interview February 27, 2018 @ the 14:02:30 mark that he “usually keeps his phone on him.” His phone was at his house in Rushville from 10:30 AM until 7:30 PM on February 13, 2017. The same phone records show EF did not use his phone at all for these 9 hours.

Therefore, the defense theorizes it is possible RdA lied about where they were and that it is possible EF left his phone at his house in Rushville, although he was elsewhere. (p. 95-97, defense memo, attached below).

Source, p. 95-97
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

 

[mrjitty]

IMO detailed confessions to family members are not here-say. The D has a plethora of information in the FM. It is important to remember some LE believed others were involved, including suspects discussed in the FM.

One example,(p. 95-97 from FM)

Continuing the EF example. EF confessed to 2 different siblings who told LE. The reason EF’s official alibi is labeled as shady is:

(1) Due to its contradiction to RdA’s recollection of where he was with EF on the same date; According to RdA (per August 29, 2018 interview): EF, RdA, and NS were at a hospital in Muncie visiting a sick friend on February 13, 2017. RA stated he and EF had their phone with them. When LE told RdA they could then pull phone records to verify their whereabouts, RdA stated “hospitals cut cell reception on phones because they interfere with hospital equipment so their phones would probably not show they were at the hospital in Muncie.”

(2) Inactivity on EF’s phone for a total of 9 hours on February 13, 2018. EF states in his interview on June 20, 2018 that he was at his house in Rushville. EF stated in his interview February 27, 2018 @ the 14:02:30 mark that he “usually keeps his phone on him.” His phone was at his house in Rushville from 10:30 AM until 7:30 PM on February 13, 2017. The same phone records show EF did not use his phone at all for these 9 hours.

Therefore, the defense theorizes it is possible RdA lied about where they were and that it is possible EF left his phone at his house in Rushville, although he was elsewhere. (p. 95-97, defense memo, attached below).

Source, p. 95-97
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

BIB - This illustrates what I am getting at - but i appreciate the discussion gets quite abstract.

LE were looking for evidence which rules people in or out. The phone evidence above is equivocal - you can theorise that maybe he was somewhere else. But it doesn't prove he was. Nor does it actually eliminate him.

So returning to trial strategy, i suspect you would get little leeway to introduce this to try and prove Elvis did the murders.

But you might be able to use parts of this stuff to support the idea that investigators had this line open for good reasons and it was never ruled out as a reasonable possibility.

That's my interpretation of what Motta was suggesting anyway. YMMV

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

IMO detailed confessions to family members are not here-say

"The fundamental policy underlying the exclusion of hearsay is that the declarant (who made the statement at issue) is not subject to cross-examination."
"Hearsay is not admissible into evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 802. In short, “hearsay” is a statement made by a declarant, not while testifying at a current trial or hearing, offered by a party to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Link from the ABA below

(A big, fat) IF the judge allows a defense of an alternative suspect, what can be said by the defense and what evidence they will be allowed to use, will be determined by the judge. Rules of evidence apply, and LE will not be testifying to the hearsay of the sister's' claims that the brother "confessed" to the murders. The sisters' being called to the testify is iffy, as the defense would have to say what information they would be getting from the sisters. Confessions are not stand-alone, and they have no firsthand evidence to give regarding the murder, and no confession was made to LE. I think the judge would rule hearsay for what they say their brother said and will insist that Holder be called to testify. An unsubstantiated "confession" is not evidence that Holder was at the crime scene or had any involvement in the murders. I doubt that Holder would cooperate. But I also doubt the judge will allow the alternative suspect defense.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/family_law/publications/family-advocate/2022/spring/revisiting-and-rethinking-hearsay/

 

[FrostedGlass]

Is that why Deiner recused himself? Who could blame him if he was threatened? I wouldn’t want this case either. But I would like to know, if he was threatened, what was he threatened with and by whom?

Here is a news source that posted accurate information regarding the threats:
Carroll County Comet
Here's a link to the doc from WTHR

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/2022-11-3-richard-allen-delphi-order-to-doc.pdf

Here is a copy/paste of Diener's order granting the sheriff's request for safekeeping.
It's in FG's document dump.
The bolding and highlighting are mine.
I thought it was a bit ironic that he notes twice Presumption of Innocence as he's ordering a defendant to prison.
*************
On November 2, 2022, Tobe H. Leazenby, Sheriff of Carroll County, filed a Request by
the Sheriff of Carroll County to Transfer inmate from Carroll County Jail to the Custody of the
Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping.
The Court, being duly advised, FINDS that Defendant is an inmate awaiting trial and is in
imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the
safety of others. This FINDING is not predicated on any acts or alleged acts of the Defendant,
since arrest, rather a toxic and harmful insistence on “public information” about Defendant and
this case.
In general, this Court has thirty (30) days to rule on any Motion that is filed by a Party in
any case. See Ind. Trial Rule 53.1(A).
Yet, concurrent to the actual case naturally occurring, this judicial officer keeps getting
direct requests from non-parties for "public information," claiming that this officer has seven
(7) days or one (1) day, when hand delivered, to respond to the request or face litigation!
While this officer is responsible for the entirety of the Circuit Court docket it attempts to
ignore the maelstrom of "interest" from the public, it is known that YouTube already hosts
content regarding family members of this judicial officer, including photos.
The public's blood lust for information, before it exists, is extremely dangerous. ALL
PUBLIC SERVANTS administering this action do not feel safe and are not protected.
The Carroll County Sheriff has limited resources to conduct its base operations, let alone
any duties mandated by our Supreme Court.
All Defendants in all actions are presumed innocent. All public information will be
available the second it exists. None of the family members of public servants are part of this
action. All of the public servants are simply people doing their jobs. Most of the public
servants are woefully underpaid. Most of the "public interest" consists of people attempting to
raise their status or profit financially.
When the public peddles misinformation with reckless abandon, we all are not safe.
Page 1 of 2
As far as the public’s desire to learn about access to court records, that educational
effort cannot be by this officer educating each individual, ad-hoc, whenever they choose to seek
"public information.” These inquiries are inherently disruptive to the operations of the Court
as they are wholly outside the operations of the Court.
As a branch of the Supreme Court, any requests for public information about this action
should be directed to whomever is the public information coordinator for the Courts in general.
lf there is not such a position, our state may need one.
Defendant indicated at the initial hearing an intention to hire private counsel.
Defendant is reminded that he must retain counsel within 20 days of the initial hearing
because there are deadlines for filing motions and raising defenses and, if those deadlines are
missed, the legal issues and defenses that could have been raised will be waived or given up.
If Defendant is unable to retain counsel of his choosing due to financial indigency,
Defendant is reminded that he is entitled to court-appointed counsel and Defendant will be
examined upon request.
The Court notes, for the public, that when Defendant appeared for the initial hearing, he
was clad in protective gear. That protection was not to protect Defendant from the Court. That
protection was to protect Defendant from the public.
Until a finding of guilt or a judgment of conviction occurs, in any case, judgment must be
reserved and the presumption of innocence must be respected and preserved.
Accordingly, pursuant to lnd. Code § 35-33-11-1, the Court ORDERS the Sheriff of
Carroll County to transfer Defendant to a facility of the department of correction designated by
the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of Defendant and provided
that space is available.
So ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2022.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Evidence and allegations don’t only work one way. I haven’t heard any recordings of confessions or seen any transcripts of recordings of confessions. The burden of proof falls on the prosecution. Their case is likely weak otherwise I highly doubt all of this drama in the case would have occurred and I highly doubt the P or JG would care who his defense attorneys are-the P would be confident they could convict him regardless. JMO.

We can't claim how strong or weak the State's case is, we don't know their evidence other than the AA and the contents of the SW's. There's a gag order in place and the State hasn't divulged their evidence or theory in some clandestine Memorandum, which really didn't address the Franks Hearing to begin with. The FM was to address the credibility of the SW and did the State have probable cause to search RA's property, which the State had in spades, not for the Defense to put forth their theory/suspects of the case, and certainly NOT to grotesquely, word by word describe the CS details of these young girls.

IMO it was gross sensationalism, exploitation of the Abby and Libby, and a Hail Mary pass to get the public talking about alternate suspects and evil cultists afoot in the IN DOC. I don't understand the utter refusal for people to even consider that RA MIGHT be the killer. He places himself there at the time of the murder, wearing identical clothing, matching BG and his mannerisms to a T (to me) and subsequently confessed several times to family members. If that doesn't give someone pause to even consider RA, then I'm truly dumbfounded. RA hasn't even provided a provable alibi that would knock him out of the running

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

We can't claim how strong or weak the State's case is, we don't know their evidence other than the AA and the contents of the SW's. There's a gag order in place and the State hasn't divulged their evidence or theory in some clandestine Memorandum, which really didn't address the Franks Hearing to begin with. The FM was to address the credibility of the SW and did the State have probable cause to search RA's property, which the State had in spades, not for the Defense to put forth their theory/suspects of the case, and certainly NOT to grotesquely, word by word describe the CS details of these young girls.

IMO it was gross sensationalism, exploitation of the Abby and Libby, and a Hail Mary pass to get the public talking about alternate suspects and evil cultists afoot in the IN DOC. I don't understand the utter refusal for people to even consider that RA MIGHT be the killer. He places himself there at the time of the murder, wearing identical clothing, matching BG and his mannerisms to a T (to me) and subsequently confessed several times to family members. If that doesn't give someone pause to even consider RA, then I'm truly dumbfounded. RA hasn't even provided a provable alibi that would knock him out of the running

MOO

For me there is at least a case to answer

As a recovering pistorius trial adict, the whole jigsaw of the eyewitnesses is intriguing. If the juvenile girls he saw are indeed the 3 prosecution witnesses, I struggle to see how he is not the man in the video. Especially his claim to have left at 1.30 might be a huge blunder on that front.

Never give police interviews without your lawyer kids. You certainly would want to have preserved wiggle room on that issue until after all the witnesses testified.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Here is a news source that posted accurate information regarding the threats:
Carroll County Comet

Here is a copy/paste of Diener's order granting the sheriff's request for safekeeping.
It's in FG's document dump.
The bolding and highlighting are mine.
I thought it was a bit ironic that he notes twice Presumption of Innocence as he's ordering a defendant to prison.
*************
On November 2, 2022, Tobe H. Leazenby, Sheriff of Carroll County, filed a Request by
the Sheriff of Carroll County to Transfer inmate from Carroll County Jail to the Custody of the
Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping.
The Court, being duly advised, FINDS that Defendant is an inmate awaiting trial and is in
imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the
safety of others. This FINDING is not predicated on any acts or alleged acts of the Defendant,
since arrest, rather a toxic and harmful insistence on “public information” about Defendant and
this case.
In general, this Court has thirty (30) days to rule on any Motion that is filed by a Party in
any case. See Ind. Trial Rule 53.1(A).
Yet, concurrent to the actual case naturally occurring, this judicial officer keeps getting
direct requests from non-parties for "public information," claiming that this officer has seven
(7) days or one (1) day, when hand delivered, to respond to the request or face litigation!
While this officer is responsible for the entirety of the Circuit Court docket it attempts to
ignore the maelstrom of "interest" from the public, it is known that YouTube already hosts
content regarding family members of this judicial officer, including photos.
The public's blood lust for information, before it exists, is extremely dangerous. ALL
PUBLIC SERVANTS administering this action do not feel safe and are not protected.
The Carroll County Sheriff has limited resources to conduct its base operations, let alone
any duties mandated by our Supreme Court.
All Defendants in all actions are presumed innocent. All public information will be
available the second it exists. None of the family members of public servants are part of this
action. All of the public servants are simply people doing their jobs. Most of the public
servants are woefully underpaid. Most of the "public interest" consists of people attempting to
raise their status or profit financially.
When the public peddles misinformation with reckless abandon, we all are not safe.
Page 1 of 2
As far as the public’s desire to learn about access to court records, that educational
effort cannot be by this officer educating each individual, ad-hoc, whenever they choose to seek
"public information.” These inquiries are inherently disruptive to the operations of the Court
as they are wholly outside the operations of the Court.
As a branch of the Supreme Court, any requests for public information about this action
should be directed to whomever is the public information coordinator for the Courts in general.
lf there is not such a position, our state may need one.
Defendant indicated at the initial hearing an intention to hire private counsel.
Defendant is reminded that he must retain counsel within 20 days of the initial hearing
because there are deadlines for filing motions and raising defenses and, if those deadlines are
missed, the legal issues and defenses that could have been raised will be waived or given up.
If Defendant is unable to retain counsel of his choosing due to financial indigency,
Defendant is reminded that he is entitled to court-appointed counsel and Defendant will be
examined upon request.
The Court notes, for the public, that when Defendant appeared for the initial hearing, he
was clad in protective gear. That protection was not to protect Defendant from the Court. That
protection was to protect Defendant from the public.
Until a finding of guilt or a judgment of conviction occurs, in any case, judgment must be
reserved and the presumption of innocence must be respected and preserved.
Accordingly, pursuant to lnd. Code § 35-33-11-1, the Court ORDERS the Sheriff of
Carroll County to transfer Defendant to a facility of the department of correction designated by
the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of Defendant and provided
that space is available.
So ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2022.

I believe Judge Diener was truly worried about the safety of RA and of his own family and staff at the CC jail. It was bloodlust when the arrest first happened. People lost their minds, and RA's safety was a real concern.

As a Judge he was absolutely correct in stating RA was presumed innocent until proven guilty, that is a legal definition. The public can form their own opinions based on the evidence as they see it, we do it here every day. It does not give anyone a right to try and take vigilante justice into their own hands against RA or any LE person/branch.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

BIB - This illustrates what I am getting at - but i appreciate the discussion gets quite abstract.

LE were looking for evidence which rules people in or out. The phone evidence above is equivocal - you can theorise that maybe he was somewhere else. But it doesn't prove he was. Nor does it actually eliminate him.

So returning to trial strategy, i suspect you would get little leeway to introduce this to try and prove Elvis did the murders.

But you might be able to use parts of this stuff to support the idea that investigators had this line open for good reasons and it was never ruled out as a reasonable possibility.

That's my interpretation of what Motta was suggesting anyway. YMMV

This is how I would interpret it, too.

First they have Unified Command dismissing three seasoned officers, including Click, who think they're on to something, and their belief carries on even after RA's arrest. Not only that, but there has always been the background hum that maybe more than one person was involved, and this scenario fits that, as well. And if an expert did, in fact, find some sign at the crime scene that the killer could have had Norse beliefs, the FM sort of enveloped all these aspects into one. IMO, they took it too far, though, and I'd like to know why.

I'm also curious why JG didn't find enough to hold the Franks hearing based on the omissions made in the PCA. S Hughes seemed to have issue with that.

 

[girlhasnoname]

And he was being responsible in my view - he was present. It’s not on him that his friend was a jerk. Very interested to see what happens in the case against his friend actually.

It's not on AB if his friend is a jerk, but it most definitely on AB to secure confidential trial material.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Hughes had some interesting comments about whether the prosecutors office has enough experience and resources for this case.

I must say I wish there was a way to reverse the talking ratio between Motta and Hughes. Unfortunately you have to wait 10 mins at a time for Hughes to get a sentence in.

Motta is high on his 15 minutes of SM fame. He's not calming down any time soon IDT.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

"The fundamental policy underlying the exclusion of hearsay is that the declarant (who made the statement at issue) is not subject to cross-examination."
"Hearsay is not admissible into evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 802. In short, “hearsay” is a statement made by a declarant, not while testifying at a current trial or hearing, offered by a party to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Link from the ABA below

(A big, fat) IF the judge allows a defense of an alternative suspect, what can be said by the defense and what evidence they will be allowed to use, will be determined by the judge. Rules of evidence apply, and LE will not be testifying to the hearsay of the sister's' claims that the brother "confessed" to the murders. The sisters' being called to the testify is iffy, as the defense would have to say what information they would be getting from the sisters. Confessions are not stand-alone, and they have no firsthand evidence to give regarding the murder, and no confession was made to LE. I think the judge would rule hearsay for what they say their brother said and will insist that Holder be called to testify. An unsubstantiated "confession" is not evidence that Holder was at the crime scene or had any involvement in the murders. I doubt that Holder would cooperate. But I also doubt the judge will allow the alternative suspect defense.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/family_law/publications/family-advocate/2022/spring/revisiting-and-rethinking-hearsay/

Thank you for the information abt heresay in law, I was uninformed about the legal application of the term heresay. Although BH’s ex wife had other things to say, the comment above is about Elvis, the word of 2 of EF’s sisters, his specific description about something no one would know about the crime scene within a week of the murders to a sibling, both siblings passing a lie detector (which I’m aware is inadmissible in court), LE’s interview with Elvis and his subsequent comments asking about DNA to LE, and the potential fib re: his timeline per where he was that night with the 2 friends per phone data. Whether or not this would affect the grounds of the FM issues (regarding the SW), I don’t think it would. But the D does talk about SW specific issues also.

JMO.

 

[zh0r4]

Here is a news source that posted accurate information regarding the threats:
Carroll County Comet
Here's a link to the doc from WTHR

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/2022-11-3-richard-allen-delphi-order-to-doc.pdf

Here is a copy/paste of Diener's order granting the sheriff's request for safekeeping.
It's in FG's document dump.
The bolding and highlighting are mine.
I thought it was a bit ironic that he notes twice Presumption of Innocence as he's ordering a defendant to prison.
*************
On November 2, 2022, Tobe H. Leazenby, Sheriff of Carroll County, filed a Request by
the Sheriff of Carroll County to Transfer inmate from Carroll County Jail to the Custody of the
Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping.
The Court, being duly advised, FINDS that Defendant is an inmate awaiting trial and is in
imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the
safety of others. This FINDING is not predicated on any acts or alleged acts of the Defendant,
since arrest, rather a toxic and harmful insistence on “public information” about Defendant and
this case.
In general, this Court has thirty (30) days to rule on any Motion that is filed by a Party in
any case. See Ind. Trial Rule 53.1(A).
Yet, concurrent to the actual case naturally occurring, this judicial officer keeps getting
direct requests from non-parties for "public information," claiming that this officer has seven
(7) days or one (1) day, when hand delivered, to respond to the request or face litigation!
While this officer is responsible for the entirety of the Circuit Court docket it attempts to
ignore the maelstrom of "interest" from the public, it is known that YouTube already hosts
content regarding family members of this judicial officer, including photos.
The public's blood lust for information, before it exists, is extremely dangerous. ALL
PUBLIC SERVANTS administering this action do not feel safe and are not protected.
The Carroll County Sheriff has limited resources to conduct its base operations, let alone
any duties mandated by our Supreme Court.
All Defendants in all actions are presumed innocent. All public information will be
available the second it exists. None of the family members of public servants are part of this
action. All of the public servants are simply people doing their jobs. Most of the public
servants are woefully underpaid. Most of the "public interest" consists of people attempting to
raise their status or profit financially.
When the public peddles misinformation with reckless abandon, we all are not safe.
Page 1 of 2
As far as the public’s desire to learn about access to court records, that educational
effort cannot be by this officer educating each individual, ad-hoc, whenever they choose to seek
"public information.” These inquiries are inherently disruptive to the operations of the Court
as they are wholly outside the operations of the Court.
As a branch of the Supreme Court, any requests for public information about this action
should be directed to whomever is the public information coordinator for the Courts in general.
lf there is not such a position, our state may need one.
Defendant indicated at the initial hearing an intention to hire private counsel.
Defendant is reminded that he must retain counsel within 20 days of the initial hearing
because there are deadlines for filing motions and raising defenses and, if those deadlines are
missed, the legal issues and defenses that could have been raised will be waived or given up.
If Defendant is unable to retain counsel of his choosing due to financial indigency,
Defendant is reminded that he is entitled to court-appointed counsel and Defendant will be
examined upon request.
The Court notes, for the public, that when Defendant appeared for the initial hearing, he
was clad in protective gear. That protection was not to protect Defendant from the Court. That
protection was to protect Defendant from the public.
Until a finding of guilt or a judgment of conviction occurs, in any case, judgment must be
reserved and the presumption of innocence must be respected and preserved.
Accordingly, pursuant to lnd. Code § 35-33-11-1, the Court ORDERS the Sheriff of
Carroll County to transfer Defendant to a facility of the department of correction designated by
the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of Defendant and provided
that space is available.
So ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2022.

I wonder why the Deiner kept reiterating “presumed innocent” and mentioning the public’s bloodlust for information (as a reason for the danger)? I am very perplexed how a prison would keep him safer than a jail? Technically there are more people in a prison to hurt the defendant than the jail? Weird.

“The Court, being duly advised, FINDS that Defendant is an inmate awaiting trial and is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. This FINDING is not predicated on any acts or alleged acts of the Defendant, since arrest, rather a toxic and harmful insistence on “public information” about Defendant and this case.”

Does this mean RA didn’t threaten suicide/to harm himself or anyone else?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I believe the concern is that if he is convicted, he can appeal on grounds of ineffective counsel.

From what I understood at the SCOIN hearing, one of the Justices was concerned about that as well and Leeman said that RA would waive that right if exD was reinstated.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I wonder why the Deiner kept reiterating “presumed innocent” and mentioning the public’s bloodlust for information (as a reason for the danger)? I am very perplexed how a prison would keep him safer than a jail? Technically there are more people in a prison to hurt the defendant than the jail? Weird.

“The Court, being duly advised, FINDS that Defendant is an inmate awaiting trial and is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. This FINDING is not predicated on any acts or alleged acts of the Defendant, since arrest, rather a toxic and harmful insistence on “public information” about Defendant and this case.”

Does this mean RA didn’t threaten suicide/to harm himself or anyone else?

The CC jail had about 4-5 full time staff employees IIRC. People (and media) were ringing the phones off the hook for comment, some making threats against RA, and some to the Judge himself, they outed his family's names and address.

There was no way they could manage their work day and provide the level of safety to RA and themselves if a vigilante group formed and decided to met out their own punishment to RA. It sounds bizarre and like the Wild West to us, but I'm sure it felt that way when RA was arrested after all those years in the tiny town of Delphi.

JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

My take is the Franks was a way to get the sensationalist theory out there, but at trial, query whether much of it would be admissible in terms of the blow by blow accounting of first this guy made a facebook post then months later another guy made a facebook post - a judge won't allow a fishing expedition of stuff that at best, doesn't prove they had anything to do with the murders.

So I think at this stage the main point was to build a public narrative - but at trial, the point will be about an investigation that wasn't completed.

I do get that, but I'm still struggling with understanding an earlier post as to whether or not the FM intended to point towards individuals who practiced Odinism as alternate suspects, and the allegation that LE did not fully investigate that angle. Or, was the FM intended to tell us that LE saw the crime scene as having been staged to look like a ritual, and failed to thoroughly investigate individuals who were named in the FM. So - the Odinists staged a crime scene to look like Odinists did it?

Maybe I need more coffee.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I wonder why the Deiner kept reiterating “presumed innocent” and mentioning the public’s bloodlust for information (as a reason for the danger)? I am very perplexed how a prison would keep him safer than a jail? Technically there are more people in a prison to hurt the defendant than the jail? Weird.

“The Court, being duly advised, FINDS that Defendant is an inmate awaiting trial and is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. This FINDING is not predicated on any acts or alleged acts of the Defendant, since arrest, rather a toxic and harmful insistence on “public information” about Defendant and this case.”

Does this mean RA didn’t threaten suicide/to harm himself or anyone else?

If anyone has proof of him being threatened or threatening someone, I'd like to see it. To my knowledge (which is limited) there has never been proof of such claims. Has MSM ever mentioned mobs waiting for RA, or unruly mobs waiting to get him?

All I've seen is the danger was perceived.

 

[girlhasnoname]

If anyone has proof of him being threatened or threatening someone, I'd like to see it. To my knowledge (which is limited) there has never been proof of such claims. Has MSM ever mentioned mobs waiting for RA, or unruly mobs waiting to get him?

All I've seen is the danger was perceived.

<snipped & BBM>

Trial court judges can recuse themselves from a case for a variety of reasons, Kathryn Dolan, a spokesperson for the Indiana Supreme Court, said in a statement. While the order is public record, a judge does not have to explain a reason for recusal. But in the motion to transfer Allen to state prison for holding, Diener cited a "blood lust" for information from the public in the case that's made officials feel unsafe and not protected.
"This finding is not predicated on any acts or alleged acts of the Defendant, since arrest, rather a toxic and harmful insistence on "public information" about Defendant and this case," Diener wrote.

He noted he's been made aware of YouTube videos containing photos of his family members.


Judge recuses himself from case against Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen

 

[zh0r4]

I do get that, but I'm still struggling with understanding an earlier post as to whether or not the FM intended to point towards individuals who practiced Odinism as alternate suspects, and the allegation that LE did not fully investigate that angle. Or, was the FM intended to tell us that LE saw the crime scene as having been staged to look like a ritual, and failed to thoroughly investigate individuals who were named in the FM. So - the Odinists staged a crime scene to look like Odinists did it?

Maybe I need more coffee.

According to the law office website cited below:

“Possible Grounds for A Franks Hearing

A trial court is obligated to conduct a Franks hearing only if the defendant makes a preliminary showing that:
1) The affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement in the warrant affidavit; and,
2) that the allegedly false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause.”

Anyone please correct me if I remember anything wrong or left anything out.

The grounds for the search warrant were:
-RA saying he was at the bridge during a specific timeline.
-RA’s car being in the parking lot within a certain timeline per eyewitnesses.
-Eyewitnesses seeing him on the bridge at a certain time.
-An unspent bullet casing found a handful of days later in the dirt.
(the video-without the timeline and BG proven as RA, this is secondary IMO; the Down the Hill video occurred around 2:13pm; BB would have seen the car approximately 2:15pm)

The FM argues (p. 23-25, p. 105-118):
-RA said he was gone by 1-1:30PM in his initial interview, and Liggett misstated him/or intentionally misstated him.
-Liggett lied about the eyewitness BB’s description of the car-BB did not say the car looked like RA’s car.
-Liggett lied about what the eyewitness on the bridge, BB, said she saw. Who looked nothing like RA, but younger and a different height/appearance.
-Liggett lied about the eyewitness who allegedly saw a man in a bloody blue jacket, SC. SC said she said she told him she saw a man in a tan and muddy jacket.
-There was no chain of custody for the unspent bullet which was found a month or 2? later.
-exculpatory evidence was withheld from the D until August 2023.

Sources:
(p. 23-25, p. 105-118)

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

What is A Franks Hearing? | Search Warrant Justification

A law firm dedicated to criminal defense including Frank's Hearings in Southwest Michigan. Offices located in Kalamazoo & Berrien County.

www.hillslawoffice.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm with you on this - they have never taken the idea that one or more people were involved that day in addition to RA off the table. That leaves a lot of people wondering if they have the right guy. I wonder if it might affect how jurors view him at trial - eg: to jurors, might there be a difference between a man who might have been involved in a kidnapping that lead to two kids being murdered and a man who acted alone to kidnap and savagely murder them? Aren't they likely to want to know who else was there, and why, and then decide on what should happen to RA accordingly?

I think the State filing the new separate charges of RA committing the act of murder and kidnapping instead of the original Felony Murder charges clears that up.

MOO