GUILTY IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen guilty - #220

[girlhasnoname]

Please correct me if im wrong as well (I refuse to go back and watch) but didn't JA say that there was no proof the phone was wet?? Ma'am we've all seen the pictures. It was wet. Dirty. Underneath Abby.

I'll say it again, RA is either the most unlucky person in the world in which his timeline meant he was seen but no other man was seen, LE planted the bullet before knowing RA was their guy way before they arrested him or he is guilt as sin.

I'll take "guilty as sin" for $500 Alex.

 

[ttjo]

The judge who oversaw the case against Richard Allen announces retirement

According to the news release, Frances Gull is looking forward to spending time with her family, friends, dogs and grandchildren.

www.wthr.com

https://www.wane.com/news/local-news/judge-fran-gull-announces-end-of-year-retirement-from-allen-superior-court/

 

[INfisherman]

The judge who oversaw the case against Richard Allen announces retirement

According to the news release, Frances Gull is looking forward to spending time with her family, friends, dogs and grandchildren.

www.wthr.com

https://www.wane.com/news/local-news/judge-fran-gull-announces-end-of-year-retirement-from-allen-superior-court/

After dealing with the clown show, who can blame her?

JMO

 

[Yemelyan]

It's a dangerous time for judges and their families. To wit: Police search for suspect in the shooting of an Indiana judge and his wife

Some cases bring out high emotion (to put it mildly). I don't blame her either.

 

[girlhasnoname]

It's a dangerous time for judges and their families. To wit: Police search for suspect in the shooting of an Indiana judge and his wife

Some cases bring out high emotion (to put it mildly). I don't blame her either.

If I'm not mistaken Judge Gull did get death threats before and during the trial. I'd be done too.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

If I'm not mistaken Judge Gull did get death threats before and during the trial. I'd be done too.

MOO

Why is why law tube is so irresponsible with it's unfounded allegations against Judges in multiple cases. IMO

 

[INfisherman]

Why is why law tube is so irresponsible with its unfounded allegations against Judges in multiple cases. IMO

Mr. J, so nice to hear from you.

The hypocrisy is staggering - threaten the life of a judge because one feels another person is innocent of a crime. Let that sink in a bit. That’s who is on "the other side", proclaiming they want justice & human lives are worth too much. Evidently not.

JMO

 

[Boxer]

After dealing with the clown show, who can blame her?

JMO

Agree. The longest hot shower in the world. Being engaged and present with monsters like RA is a disgusting experience.

 

[mrjitty]

Mr. J, so nice to hear from you.

The hypocrisy is staggering - threaten the life of a judge because one feels another person is innocent of a crime. Let that sink in a bit. That’s who is on "the other side", proclaiming they want justice & human lives are worth too much. Evidently not.

JMO

A great irony we may well experience is future lawyers for Allen arguing on appeal that his counsel were grossly negligent and he should get a new trial.

Their basis? Judge Gull's finding, on the record, that his counsel were grossly negligent and referral for misconduct.

It's going to be so funny when the law tube campaigners pivot from the supposed corruption of Gull to relying on the truth of that finding!

Especially because currently they claim that finding was biased and corrupt!

 

[girlhasnoname]

A great irony we may well experience is future lawyers for Allen arguing on appeal that his counsel were grossly negligent and he should get a new trial.

Their basis? Judge Gull's finding, on the record, that his counsel were grossly negligent and referral for misconduct.

It's going to be so funny when the law tube campaigners pivot from the supposed corruption of Gull to relying on the truth of that finding!

Especially because currently they claim that finding was biased and corrupt!

I wiped my files on this case a few months ago. I didn't even want RA info on my computer.

But, I remember when they held the SCOI hearing on Judge Gull's ruling to disqualify his attorneys (Rozzi and Baldwin) it was addressed of the fact that if they reinstated R&B there wouldn't be grounds for a new trial based on ineffective council. Allen insisted he wanted R&B to continue as his Defense Attorneys.

I reread the SCOI ruling and it find it hilarious that R&B also asked and were denied the right to a 70 day speedy trial. They were not ready for several more months and they certainly weren't ready then.

<snipped>

Allen vs. Carroll Circuit Court Supreme Court of Indiana Decisions

https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2024/23s-or-00311.html

Get comfy Bridge Guy, you aren't going anywhere.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I wiped my files on this case a few months ago. I didn't even want RA info on my computer.

But, I remember when they held the SCOI hearing on Judge Gull's ruling to disqualify his attorneys (Rozzi and Baldwin) it was addressed of the fact that if they reinstated R&B there wouldn't be grounds for a new trial based on ineffective council. Allen insisted he wanted R&B to continue as his Defense Attorneys.

I reread the SCOI ruling and it find it hilarious that R&B also asked and were denied the right to a 70 day speedy trial. They were not ready for several more months and they certainly weren't ready then.

<snipped>

Allen vs. Carroll Circuit Court Supreme Court of Indiana Decisions

https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2024/23s-or-00311.html

Get comfy Bridge Guy, you aren't going anywhere.

MOO

Hi Girl! hope you are good.

I don't recall SCOIN saying that reinstatement ruled out a claim of ineffective representation - I think it was only something that came up in argument?

The only question SCOIN was ruling on, was whether Judge Gull acted too hastily in removing the duo. It could still be they were negligent and ineffective - just that she didn't make out a factual/legal basis for removal.

IMO

ETA - this seems to be the key passage. Judge Gull unfortunately didn't make these required additional findings (though she could have). But on appeal, Attorneys for Allen could develop the argument to show how the negligence/incompetence harmed the defence. For example, maybe they could argue that Baldwin's "social media conspiracy brain" led him to leaking crime scene photos and tunnelling into unbelievable conspiracies instead of focussing on obvious arguments ...

 

[girlhasnoname]

Hi Girl! hope you are good.

I don't recall SCOIN saying that reinstatement ruled out a claim of ineffective representation - I think it was only something that came up in argument?

The only question SCOIN was ruling on, was whether Judge Gull acted too hastily in removing the duo. It could still be they were negligent and ineffective - just that she didn't make out a factual/legal basis for removal.

IMO

ETA - this seems to be the key passage. Judge Gull unfortunately didn't make these required additional findings (though she could have). But on appeal, Attorneys for Allen could develop the argument to show how the negligence/incompetence harmed the defence. For example, maybe they could argue that Baldwin's "social media conspiracy brain" led him to leaking crime scene photos and tunnelling into unbelievable conspiracies instead of focussing on obvious arguments ... View attachment 639781

Hi Friend!

Yes, I watched the hearing back then and one of the Justices (I believe I remember it being the lone female Judge) brought the issue up specifically. I am hanging my hat on:

RBBM:

Notably, neither the State nor the special judge direct us to any case concluding that issues like these - either in isolation or combination - rendered counsel constitutionally ineffective or were sufficient to warrant disqualification.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Hi Friend!

Yes, I watched the hearing back then and one of the Justices (I believe I remember it being the lone female Judge) brought the issue up specifically. I am hanging my hat on:

RBBM:

Notably, neither the State nor the special judge direct us to any case concluding that issues like these - either in isolation or combination - rendered counsel constitutionally ineffective or were sufficient to warrant disqualification.

JMO

IMO they are talking only about grounds for disqualification - the bar is very high for that, and the Judge didn't make the required findings for all legs of the test so to speak.

On appeal, lawyers for Allen could point to many more data points in terms of the conduct of the case, but also rely on the factual finding of negligence/misconduct already established. So for example they might be able to claim, based on the files, that Baldwin was obsessed with internet conspiracies, illustrated by the negligent leaking of the photos, but going on to other communications with the DPG etc - this all led to them ignoring critical parts of the case e,g a proper ballistics expert, KK as an alt suspect etc

Would it work? Probably not. But it's not nothing. As SCOIN noted, the is exactly what Judge Gull was trying to prevent!

 

[snooptroop88]

IMO they are talking only about grounds for disqualification - the bar is very high for that, and the Judge didn't make the required findings for all legs of the test so to speak.

On appeal, lawyers for Allen could point to many more data points in terms of the conduct of the case, but also rely on the factual finding of negligence/misconduct already established. So for example they might be able to claim, based on the files, that Baldwin was obsessed with internet conspiracies, illustrated by the negligent leaking of the photos, but going on to other communications with the DPG etc - this all led to them ignoring critical parts of the case e,g a proper ballistics expert, KK as an alt suspect etc

Would it work? Probably not. But it's not nothing. As SCOIN noted, the is exactly what Judge Gull was trying to prevent!

So "Rick" could potentially have his case remanded for a new trial, yes?

After the judge tried to have his attorneys removed with mentions of "gross incompetence," and "grossly negligent" and "unethical" actions, I can't see this panning out for "Rick"-- especially in light of the fact that he refused to accept other counsel, with the whole thing reaching the level of the state supreme court. And what about policy concerns? Based on this, many defendants might decide to start stampeding the worst n wackiest counsel they can find. Then, if convicted, they simply call out worst n wacky through other attorneys at appellate level & feign victimization by worst & wacky, and get themselves at the very least a new trial-- potentially costing millions of dollars.

Not gonna happen in a million years, jmo. If they try it, though, watch for a resurfacing of The Crazy Rick Show.

 

[mrjitty]

Keep in mind that none of this is even a starter until his appeal fails so this is a possibility maybe in some years when a habeas appeal is bought including for ineffective counsel. In that application Baldwin will go under the bus and it will be quite amusing how the fan club deal IMO.

IMO it’s his best argument. But obviously a huge long shot.

I wasn’t trying to say any of this is likely to work only that the argument exists as SCOIN noted.