Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
steeltowngirl said:
His attorneys are asking the judge to vacate a safekeeping order, and transfer Allen to either the Tippecanoe or Cass County Jail.

www.wlfi.com

Richard Allen may spend time in the Tippecanoe County Jail

Delphi homicide suspect Richard Allen may spend time in the Tippecanoe County Jail.
www.wlfi.com www.wlfi.com
Click to expand...
Oh ok, thank you for that! I was looking on the IDOC incarcerated list and RA isn't on it. Was he ever? He's not technically an inmate but he is incarcerated in the IDOC, shouldn't he be on the list?
 
FrostedGlass said:
So the P was well aware of this new information when he wrote his ping-filled 5/17 response to the 4th Franks Motion.
I didn't make it through all 5 pages but I suspect it read something like 'the D don't know what they are talking about; and even if they do, they're not being truthful.'

Discovery still dripping in from the P.
MOO

Excerpts From the Motion to Continue Hearings (on All Matters...)
10. Additionally, on May 15, 2024, the State of Indiana just turned over
new phone extraction that had been conducted this past weekend.
11.The defense received possession of that new phone extraction
less than week before the motion in limine hearing was set and
needs more time to review the phone extraction data.
13.Additionally, the witness who extracted the phone data last weekend
has indicated that he will be issuing report on his findings as well as
investigating matters identified by the defense that the defense
believes provide important information concerning third-party suspects.

Motion to Continue Hearings (on All Matters...)

Motion to Continue All Hearings

drive.google.com drive.google.com

State's Reply to the 4th Franks

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com acrobat.adobe.com
Click to expand...
Oooo I wonder who's phone this is/was!?
 
Emma Peel said:
A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday May 21st, but this Motion to Disqualify Judge Gull precludes JG from conducting any other business than considering/responding to this DQ motion.

Defense's Motion to Continue (re: ALL MATTERS):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16n-iHxA3f58tRnFtPd0Dp4XWSH_LLTcP/view?usp=drivesdk…


Given the D's Motion to Continue ALL Matters and the DQ Motion ... by Monday, JG must either responds/rules on the DQ Motion, or cancel the Tuesday/Wed/Thurs 3-day hearing.

JMHO
Click to expand...
That will take all of one minute...then onto the rest of it...the more important stuff. MO
 
Third-party? What makes a person first-, second- or third-party?

Would I be correct to assume it's legalese for SODDI?

Because I think I see where the Defense wants to go here. A prior POI who lives locally probably did have his cellphone ping very near the crime scene. Would be very compelling until later geo analysis pinpointed the actual location, probably where his house sits.

Every trial has limitations. Not every data point is on trial, not every question tried and answered, and every trial that I've ever followed begins with stipulations, whereby both sides agree. Helps streamline the process. Exhibits. Experts. They can agree ahead of trial. Cuts down on time-eating objections.

The Defense COULD stipulate that ping technology is superseded by geo tracking (CAST reports)... but the Defense here isn't gonna. Because it appears they want to exaggerate, confuse, misrepresent in the hopes that they can simultaneously warp when RA was at the trail and suggest that phones were moving all over the place, Libby's and a splay of SODDIS'.

I just watched a trial needlessly drawn out because the Defense wouldn't let up on presumptive testing, on items that were subsequently ruled in or out as positive for human blood and in fact yielding a profile consistent with the DNA of a known person. Because they wouldn't stipulate, the State had to call extra expert witnesses, go through tedious chain of custody testimony, item by item. No impact on the evidence, just tiresome.

It is my opinion that the Defense is embracing pings because they can manipulate what the data shows, neverminding that GPS analysis refutes it.
 
sunshineray said:
Oh ok, thank you for that! I was looking on the IDOC incarcerated list and RA isn't on it. Was he ever? He's not technically an inmate but he is incarcerated in the IDOC, shouldn't he be on the list?
Click to expand...
Someone upthread said he’s never been on the incarcerated list:

But is on SAVIN offender search with an IDOC#:

And Vinelink (but current Wabash Valley status isn’t showing up):
 
snooptroop88 said:
What's taking a major hit here is Odinism, which I knew absolutely nothing about until this trial. Like just because someone's into neo-paganism, they're suddenly now possible murderers and/or racists?? Why didn't the D narrow its scope accurately? This is about Vinlanders, not necessarily neo-pagans generally, or Odinism generally. I'm not saying Odinism isn't associated with racism and possibly killing, but I am saying Odinism is not always associated with these.

Odinism is considered a genuine religion by some of its practitioners. That may trigger religious protections legally, and possibly freedom of expression concerns, and maybe freedom of association concerns, too. That means restrictions, and there's potentially not going to be the same robust debate on the issue when it triggers these protections. It's (potentially) not going to be as "wide-open" as the debate you might see on whether this was an SK. A D can reap the benefits of attacking a religious "cult" in their trial (conjuring up the ideas of the "mysterious," "secretive," and "ritual" in juorors' heads) while at the same time, they can exploit the legal protection of exactly what they're discussing (guards' wearing of Odinite patches and so on). What's not to love for a D in that? "Oh, we know it was them!! If only these cult murderers didn't get to hide behind this! You may not be able to see the whole picture! So unfortunate!" They want to conjure up these "scary cult" images in people's heads, and at the same time, they can exploit the legal "fallout" that might accompany their "reasoning." And we've already seen some of that in that the wearing of these patches by guards does move into complex legal issues that are completely removed from this trial's fundamental question. But the real problem with D reasoning is that they shouldn't be discussing the religious aspect at all since the people they're noting that practice it are not the ones on trial. Their client is. And they're noting he's not an Odinite, so...? So why turn Richard Allen's trial into a witch hunt, basically? Because the average person probably isn't a witch. The average person isn't someone "into" Odinism. And that's some social currency any D can really put to bad use if they're in the mood to do so. I would hope the D isn't doing this, but they very easily could have made this about "Vinlanders" instead of "Odinism." The problem? Well, my guess is the prison guards in question aren't Vinlanders, which is the known hate group. Look, what this is really about is whether RA's "Bridge Guy." D keeps insisting he's not guilty, so-- not Bridge Guy. Why do you think that? Leave the "Odinists" out of it for a few seconds. Why is RA not "Bridge Guy"? They clearly don't want to answer this question right now, but pretty soon, they'll have to.
Click to expand...
Honestly, that is why civic proceedings and services need to be religion free. Once you have people sporting religious symbols while invested with civic authority its going to lead some kind of unnecessary conflict.
 
steeltowngirl said:
Someone upthread said he’s never been on the incarcerated list:

But is on SAVIN offender search with an IDOC#:

And Vinelink (but current Wabash Valley status isn’t showing up):
Click to expand...
Ok on SAVIN there's two listed for RA.

One saying in custody Wabash Correctional with no date and an ID#

The other with no ID# and a date of release May 7, 2024 "Release - Own Recognizance"

On the VINE link...

Book Date: Allen County Sheriff May 6, 2024 at 3:28pm
Custody Status Date: May 7, 2024 10:55am
Custody Staus: Out of Custody
Custody Detail: General Release

Is all the SAVIN and VINE lingo above for the hearing transport?
 
sunshineray said:
Ok on SAVIN there's two listed for RA.

One saying in custody Wabash Correctional with no date and an ID#

The other with no ID# and a date of release May 7, 2024 "Release - Own Recognizance"

On the VINE link...

Book Date: Allen County Sheriff May 6, 2024 at 3:28pm
Custody Status Date: May 7, 2024 10:55am
Custody Staus: Out of Custody
Custody Detail: General Release

Is all the SAVIN and VINE lingo above for the hearing transport?
Click to expand...
I think so, yes. The sites are not quite accurate or in sync, but defense states he’s in Wabash, and the May dates coincide with hearing transport.

It gave me quite a startle yesterday when I saw ‘out of custody’ and ‘released on recognizance’.
 
Once the picture of bridge guy was released, it is surprising Richard Allen did not wonder how LE got the picture? Once he probably figured out from the picture based on the angle and placement on the bridge that it had to be from one of the two girls, he must have been confident that nothing else had been captured of his movements or voice. Richard Allen admitted to being on platform 1 of the Monon High Bridge so the only thing the witness(BB) does is corroborate his story. If Richard Allen did not see the witness(BB), then he should have thought that no one saw him commit the abduction. His only concern would have been the 3 or 4 girls he passed right at the beginning of the trail near the Freedom Bridge. For some reason Richard Allen is worried about these potential witnesses.

Yet the investigation would not have revealed these witnesses until later or maybe not at all without Richard Allen's help. In the PCA tip narrative written by the conservation officer, it states the following:

Potential follow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area of Freedom Bridge?
 
Cyber sleuth said:
Seems like Deja vu to the motion for speedy trial filed and then immediately a motion to stay all other hearings (including contempt and sanctions against defense) just 4 months ago.
They sure do know how to play the system.
AMO
Click to expand...
It does feel a bit deja vu.

The law provides that when a motion to disqualify is filed, the Judge motioned can conduct no further case business until the disqualification motion is answered.

But there's a difference between invoking the DQ process available to a defendant - and lawyers playing the system for continuances/time. And there's no such thing as playing the Appellate system.

A Motion for Disqualification is the available process by which a defendant requests a change of trial judge/venue due to the bias or perceived bias of the trial judge. As Judges rule with unchecked power, the public's and the defendant's trust in their presiding Judge - are a very serious matter. Very few Judges fail to acknowledge and then acquiesce to such defendant's concern about the Judge's ability to be impartial and to rule fairly, to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial.

That being said, this is the 2nd such motion for Judge Gull with regard to RA's matter at RA's request. (The 3rd if we count Hennessey's request for JG's recusal in October.)

Taking things a step further - should Judge Gull again decline to recuse - RA cannot bring a nonsense claim to the SCOIN or to the Appellate Division. Neither of those higher Courts will hear nonsense; they reject appeals of lesser consequence. And RA has already twice brought appeals to SCOIN that were deemed priority (and not nonsense).

IMO - RA and counsel believe their best chance for a fair trial relies upon this DQ Motion. It's checking power, and leveling the playing field - rather than playing the system.

JMHO
 
Megnut said:
The Defense COULD stipulate that ping technology is superseded by geo tracking (CAST reports)... but the Defense here isn't gonna. Because it appears they want to exaggerate, confuse, misrepresent in the hopes that they can simultaneously warp when RA was at the trail and suggest that phones were moving all over the place, Libby's and a splay of SODDIS'.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed on this. What matters to this D is how something can potentially look rather than how it really probably is, which is why they wanted to avoid a trial at all costs. The trial will be "what it is," while YouTube is much more "how it can look." It's the same situation as the "three phones at the CS," nice splashy headline without critical examination of the substance behind it. Am surprised they haven't tried to openly blame JG for their "lack of parity" on this. "We didn't have money for the experts!!" Right, the pings are in the real world of the real crime you're examining. Maybe careful examination of the phone data should have been front-loaded ahead of your quasi-investigation of Odinism.
justtrish said:
Exactly!

Since the defense seemed to have so many questions about the pings maybe the state went back to get more detailed analysis of these pings. Now the defense makes it seem like this was discovery that they failed to turn over??

If the defense doesn't want the true answers to questions, maybe they should quit asking them. OR maybe they should find out the answers before insinuating that it somehow favors their client when it doesn't. I've always heard lawyers don't ask questions they don't already know the answers too.
Click to expand...
Them asking creates fodder for YouTube spots, so they'll keep asking, and screaming about Odin. Ping evidence is sometimes a refuge of weak defenses, it's one of the first places the Kohberger defense ran for refuge. It has limitations, and it's not that easy to decipher. Agreed on the questions with lawyers, but D's 120 years of combined experience couldn't prevent that CS photo leak, either, so maybe they really don't know. Maybe their frustration with the judge stems from the idea that she's not as understanding of the D on things like this and she just thinks, you know, hey, they should know. Which seems logical, but they'll just keep asking the old war horse to recuse. You can lead an old war horse to the SCOIN, but you can't make her recuse. Which means pretty soon, it'll be time to subpoena Odin.
 
Caylee Advocate said:
In the early 2000s in Indiana, a racist skinhead group called the Vinlanders Social Club, who identified as Odinists, formed in Indiana. That grew to be one of the largest and most hardcore, racist skinhead groups in the country.



'Odinism': How white supremacists co-opt pagan symbols to further racist agendas in the United States..
Click to expand...
I'm confused though, why would a racist (white supremists) Odinist group of men be killing two young white girls in a sacrificial rite?
 
sunshineray said:
I'm confused though, why would a racist (white supremists) Odinist group of men be killing two young white girls in a sacrificial rite?
Click to expand...
Think I saw some mention of how an interracial relationship may have been involved somehow. Looking for it. I just found it, but so far, only on Reddit. Okay, @steeltowngirl noted a while back it was in the Franks Memo. And just confirmed, it's in there on p17.

I would think even without that factor, though (which may not be true since it's in the Franks Memo), they still might have been targeted for a sacrifice. For some of these cults, it's like an honor to be sacrificed. From what's known of the Vinlanders, though, I wouldn't picture them taking that approach.
 
Last edited:
snooptroop88 said:
Think I saw some mention of how an interracial relationship may have been involved somehow. Looking for it. I just found it, but so far, only on Reddit. Okay, @steeltowngirl noted a while back it was in the Franks Memo. And just confirmed, it's in there on p17.

I would think even without that factor, though (which may not be true since it's in the Franks Memo), they still might have been targeted for a sacrifice. For some of these cults, it's like an honor to be sacrificed. From what's known of the Vinlanders, though, I wouldn't picture them taking that approach.
Click to expand...
Oh ok, thanks...Franks again. I've just disregarded that sloppy and appalling affront and keep forgetting others revere it.
 
Emma Peel said:
It does feel a bit deja vu.

The law provides that when a motion to disqualify is filed, the Judge motioned can conduct no further case business until the disqualification motion is answered.

But there's a difference between invoking the DQ process available to a defendant - and lawyers playing the system for continuances/time. And there's no such thing as playing the Appellate system.

A Motion for Disqualification is the available process by which a defendant requests a change of trial judge/venue due to the bias or perceived bias of the trial judge. As Judges rule with unchecked power, the public's and the defendant's trust in their presiding Judge - are a very serious matter. Very few Judges fail to acknowledge and then acquiesce to such defendant's concern about the Judge's ability to be impartial and to rule fairly, to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial.

That being said, this is the 2nd such motion for Judge Gull with regard to RA's matter at RA's request. (The 3rd if we count Hennessey's request for JG's recusal in October.)

Taking things a step further - should Judge Gull again decline to recuse - RA cannot bring a nonsense claim to the SCOIN or to the Appellate Division. Neither of those higher Courts will hear nonsense; they reject appeals of lesser consequence. And RA has already twice brought appeals to SCOIN that were deemed priority (and not nonsense).

IMO - RA and counsel believe their best chance for a fair trial relies upon this DQ Motion. It's checking power, and leveling the playing field - rather than playing the system.

JMHO
Click to expand...
I believe this clown circus could have been completely avoided if R&B had stayed withdrawn as they agreed to do in Judge's chambers and S&L been left to represent Defendant Allen. R&B just couldn't let their famous client go; too much fame and recognition $$$$$ to be had. IMO

The problem is the Defense team and their underhanded, unprofessional tactics, not the Judge IMO.

MOO
 
sunshineray said:
Oh ok, thanks...Franks again. I've just disregarded that sloppy and appalling affront and keep forgetting others revere it.
Click to expand...
According to the Defense and their SM supporters it was one of the most well written documents in legal history. LOL

I can't wait to see the State dismantle this garbage document, page by page, footnotes included during trial.

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 88 more.
Total: 3,043 (members: 89, guests: 2,954)

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
2,954
Total visitors
3,043
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,254
Messages
18,021,730
Members
229,613
Latest member
deluhg01
Back
Top