Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
State's Response to Defense's Motion to Suppress 2nd Interview:

Adobe Acrobat
Noteworthy:

Further, it is clear that Richard Allen is aware of his rights and understands his rights because at one point during the interview he tells his wife that requesting an attorney would terminate the interview.
 
He has literally said he is unequivocally NOT part of the defense team and has no inside knowledge. Those words have come from his mouth. Why do you think he's on the defense team? He's not on any of the documents. This is a weird conversation lol.

IMO
Because as I've understood it, he's also said other things that contradict being uninvolved also. What to believe? With this defense and these youtubers/podcasters, I can't believe much, if anything, they say. Yes indeed, this defense and it's avid supporters have had some very weird schmoozing going on. AJMO
 
The judge in the Mollie Tibbetts case allowed the defense to say Ninjas did it. The judge in the Dan Markel case allowed the defense to say their client was extorted by the killers after the murders and he had no knowledge or participation but still paid the killers. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the judge in THIS case should allow in evidence of another actual confession. Gonna be a short trial if she doesn't allow the defense to present a case.

But, that's what appeals are for I guess.

Something stinks in Delphi. The world is watching. Judge Gull's bias will be exposed.

IMO MOO
SCOIN ruled she had no bias.
 
I can see as a practical point why the P wants to outlaw any and all SODDI. But I’m not crazy about the defense being in such a tiny box for all to see. Is the P totally uninterested in how RA happened to be there with his kidnap kit? Do they think they know?
There's no way the P would be totally uninterested in how RA did what he did. They do have solid evidence showing that and it's why they arrested and charged him for murders to begin with IMO. I believe it was something found during the SW of RA's home maybe in connection with a recent tip in.

I can't say if we or anybody other than RA will ever truly know the why? Maybe during his 20+ confessions he did state why, IDK.

IMO that's why the D has been so obsessed with getting the SW tossed, there's something very incriminating there. If RA is completely, 100% innocent like they've stated from the beginning, there wouldn't have been anything incriminating to be found in those searches. Why file 4 Franks Motions?


ALL JMO
 
He even included "and don't tell the jury we asked for the defense to not be able to present a case" verbiage. He's thorough! He's dying for this case to be appealed...why? Maybe it's strategy. Hoping.

IMO MOO
I wonder if he wanted that motion sealed and filed it too fast?

I copied this for myself and excluded all the citations for easier reading. I'm kind of amazed how he spelled out all the things he's hoping to get excluded.
Number 7 piqued my interest.
Number 10 = so if any of the P's witnesses are lying liars, we dare not hear it?

1. Any comments about Counsel for the State that constitutes a personal attack on the
attorney for the State or comments on the role of the State’s attorney.
2. Any comment which constitutes the personal opinion of Defense Counsel about any
evidence, witness, outcome or penalty.
3. Any innuendo or inference that is not supported by admissible evidence.
4. Any attempt to indoctrinate the jury during voir dire by exposing the jury to
substantive issue in the case.
5. Any attempt during voir dire to have the jury pre-judge the credibility of a witness.
6. Any hypothetical questions that includes facts that are not in evidence or questions
that are not helpful in violation of Rule 705.
7. Any attempt to introduce evidence of 3rd party motive that is not relevant and/or the
probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
8. Any reference to an investigation conducted by Todd Click, along with any reports or
investigative materials from Todd Click that is not relevant or is used for the purpose
of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about
geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the
purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of
Rule 401.
10. Any reference to any prior bad acts or acts of any witnesses that plan to testify at the
trial that is not relevant to what the Defendant is on trial for, that is not an act that is
an exception to IRE 404(b) and that is not both relevant under IRE 401 and tend to
negate the guilt of the Defendant.
11. Any reference to how the files were labeled that were handed over to the Defense as
part of the information and discovery provided to Defense Counsel by the State that
are not relevant or that would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
12. Any reference to any PowerPoints provided by the State as Executive Briefs
involving any person or persons that were investigated by law enforcement as part of
the 6 year investigation into the murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German that
are not relevant or would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the potential to
mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
A. Order the Defendant, through his counsel, and witnesses to refrain from mentioning,
commenting, or making any reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to any of
the above matters without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence
and hearing of the jury;
B. To further order said persons to make no reference to the fact that this motion has
been filed and granted, and all other relief just and proper in the premises.
 
I wonder if he wanted that motion sealed and filed it too fast?

I copied this for myself and excluded all the citations for easier reading. I'm kind of amazed how he spelled out all the things he's hoping to get excluded.
Number 7 piqued my interest.
Number 10 = so if any of the P's witnesses are lying liars, we dare not hear it?

1. Any comments about Counsel for the State that constitutes a personal attack on the
attorney for the State or comments on the role of the State’s attorney.
2. Any comment which constitutes the personal opinion of Defense Counsel about any
evidence, witness, outcome or penalty.
3. Any innuendo or inference that is not supported by admissible evidence.
4. Any attempt to indoctrinate the jury during voir dire by exposing the jury to
substantive issue in the case.
5. Any attempt during voir dire to have the jury pre-judge the credibility of a witness.
6. Any hypothetical questions that includes facts that are not in evidence or questions
that are not helpful in violation of Rule 705.
7. Any attempt to introduce evidence of 3rd party motive that is not relevant and/or the
probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
8. Any reference to an investigation conducted by Todd Click, along with any reports or
investigative materials from Todd Click that is not relevant or is used for the purpose
of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about
geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the
purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of
Rule 401.
10. Any reference to any prior bad acts or acts of any witnesses that plan to testify at the
trial that is not relevant to what the Defendant is on trial for, that is not an act that is
an exception to IRE 404(b) and that is not both relevant under IRE 401 and tend to
negate the guilt of the Defendant.
11. Any reference to how the files were labeled that were handed over to the Defense as
part of the information and discovery provided to Defense Counsel by the State that
are not relevant or that would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
12. Any reference to any PowerPoints provided by the State as Executive Briefs
involving any person or persons that were investigated by law enforcement as part of
the 6 year investigation into the murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German that
are not relevant or would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the potential to
mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
A. Order the Defendant, through his counsel, and witnesses to refrain from mentioning,
commenting, or making any reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to any of
the above matters without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence
and hearing of the jury;
B. To further order said persons to make no reference to the fact that this motion has
been filed and granted, and all other relief just and proper in the premises.
It's open season on wish lists.
(Season lasts 2 weeks, give or take)

jmo
 
Last edited:
I wonder if he wanted that motion sealed and filed it too fast?

I copied this for myself and excluded all the citations for easier reading. I'm kind of amazed how he spelled out all the things he's hoping to get excluded.
Number 7 piqued my interest.
Number 10 = so if any of the P's witnesses are lying liars, we dare not hear it?

1. Any comments about Counsel for the State that constitutes a personal attack on the
attorney for the State or comments on the role of the State’s attorney.
2. Any comment which constitutes the personal opinion of Defense Counsel about any
evidence, witness, outcome or penalty.
3. Any innuendo or inference that is not supported by admissible evidence.
4. Any attempt to indoctrinate the jury during voir dire by exposing the jury to
substantive issue in the case.
5. Any attempt during voir dire to have the jury pre-judge the credibility of a witness.
6. Any hypothetical questions that includes facts that are not in evidence or questions
that are not helpful in violation of Rule 705.
7. Any attempt to introduce evidence of 3rd party motive that is not relevant and/or the
probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
8. Any reference to an investigation conducted by Todd Click, along with any reports or
investigative materials from Todd Click that is not relevant or is used for the purpose
of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about
geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the
purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of
Rule 401.
10. Any reference to any prior bad acts or acts of any witnesses that plan to testify at the
trial that is not relevant to what the Defendant is on trial for, that is not an act that is
an exception to IRE 404(b) and that is not both relevant under IRE 401 and tend to
negate the guilt of the Defendant.
11. Any reference to how the files were labeled that were handed over to the Defense as
part of the information and discovery provided to Defense Counsel by the State that
are not relevant or that would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
12. Any reference to any PowerPoints provided by the State as Executive Briefs
involving any person or persons that were investigated by law enforcement as part of
the 6 year investigation into the murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German that
are not relevant or would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the potential to
mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
A. Order the Defendant, through his counsel, and witnesses to refrain from mentioning,
commenting, or making any reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to any of
the above matters without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence
and hearing of the jury;
B. To further order said persons to make no reference to the fact that this motion has
been filed and granted, and all other relief just and proper in the premises.

#7: Am I being too nitpicky about the word "evidence" here? Shouldn't "he" (Ms. Diener clearly wrote this, as she is way smarter than NM, IMO) have said "theory?" Because doesn't the word "evidence" imply that it's proof?

#10: This is typical in many cases, but particularly in this case it will prevent certain family members' criminal histories from being put on trial. There are a lot of felonies that (probably?) have nothing to do with Richard Allen.

IMO MOO
 
Are you making this as an affirmative statement, as fact, @steeltowngirl? Just curious, as this is what the prosecution is asking for, but we don't know that they will get this relief.

Is it possible this motion isn't asking for all of this to be automatically excluded, but if the defense intends to bring any of it up, they have to explain why? ("Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant" is repeated over and over.)
 
Is it possible this motion isn't asking for all of this to be automatically excluded, but if the defense intends to bring any of it up, they have to explain why? ("Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant" is repeated over and over.)
They'd have to prove it's relevance, each and every thing, with evidence...before the judge, not the jury.
 
Noteworthy:

Further, it is clear that Richard Allen is aware of his rights and understands his rights because at one point during the interview he tells his wife that requesting an attorney would terminate the interview.
That's the interview where KA had to stay in the lobby. Even if he did go down and talk to her, how would they have heard him?
If that's true, for all we know, he could have been telling her to call and attorney.
 
This is Judge Gull we're talking about. She'll grant it all.
Not necessarily, the Defense has to pull up it's sleeves and stop spouting innuendos and theories and start showing evidence to back up their claims...finally. If they can't, it's the law it can't be admitted. They ought to know all this and have expected all this, they're good lawyers right, they got this? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
I wonder if he wanted that motion sealed and filed it too fast?

I copied this for myself and excluded all the citations for easier reading. I'm kind of amazed how he spelled out all the things he's hoping to get excluded.
Number 7 piqued my interest.
Number 10 = so if any of the P's witnesses are lying liars, we dare not hear it?

1. Any comments about Counsel for the State that constitutes a personal attack on the
attorney for the State or comments on the role of the State’s attorney.
2. Any comment which constitutes the personal opinion of Defense Counsel about any
evidence, witness, outcome or penalty.
3. Any innuendo or inference that is not supported by admissible evidence.
4. Any attempt to indoctrinate the jury during voir dire by exposing the jury to
substantive issue in the case.
5. Any attempt during voir dire to have the jury pre-judge the credibility of a witness.
6. Any hypothetical questions that includes facts that are not in evidence or questions
that are not helpful in violation of Rule 705.
7. Any attempt to introduce evidence of 3rd party motive that is not relevant and/or the
probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
8. Any reference to an investigation conducted by Todd Click, along with any reports or
investigative materials from Todd Click that is not relevant or is used for the purpose
of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about
geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the
purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of
Rule 401.
10. Any reference to any prior bad acts or acts of any witnesses that plan to testify at the
trial that is not relevant to what the Defendant is on trial for, that is not an act that is
an exception to IRE 404(b) and that is not both relevant under IRE 401 and tend to
negate the guilt of the Defendant.
11. Any reference to how the files were labeled that were handed over to the Defense as
part of the information and discovery provided to Defense Counsel by the State that
are not relevant or that would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
12. Any reference to any PowerPoints provided by the State as Executive Briefs
involving any person or persons that were investigated by law enforcement as part of
the 6 year investigation into the murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German that
are not relevant or would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the potential to
mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
A. Order the Defendant, through his counsel, and witnesses to refrain from mentioning,
commenting, or making any reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to any of
the above matters without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence
and hearing of the jury;
B. To further order said persons to make no reference to the fact that this motion has
been filed and granted, and all other relief just and proper in the premises.

To me, this is the prosecution’s attempt to make sure the defense behaves itself during the trial. They are basically calling them out beforehand. Letting them know, we are on to you.
As far as all the things the prosecution wants not mentioned, at best, it kinda pales in comparison to what the defense has wanted suppressed and excluded, which has been pretty much everything. At worst, it’s a tit for tat.
Just my thoughts.
 
Is it possible this motion isn't asking for all of this to be automatically excluded, but if the defense intends to bring any of it up, they have to explain why? ("Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant" is repeated over and over.)
Here is the language the prosecution uses in its Motion in Limine; this is what they want for relief:

"WHEREFORE, the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland,
respectfully requests this Court to grant the following relief:
A. Order the Defendant, through his counsel, and witnesses to refrain from mentioning,
commenting, or making any reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to any of
the above matters without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence
and hearing of the jury;
B. To further order said persons to make no reference to the fact that this motion has
been filed and granted, and all other relief just and proper in the premises."

They are asking for the defense to first gain permission from the court to present the "above matters" without the permission of the court. It is clear the prosecution wants it all excluded in its entirety, but they know that is a long shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
293
Total visitors
506

Forum statistics

Threads
608,001
Messages
18,232,973
Members
234,270
Latest member
bolsa
Back
Top