Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

[sunshineray]

How many other Indiana attorneys coming forward and ISC opinions do you need before you can admit that Judge Gull has handled certain things poorly? I’m not saying that she’s part of a conspiracy or that she’s purposefully trying to screw RA over or even that she’s doing a bad job overall but she has made some bad decisions. That’s a fact. It’s frustrating to see people accuse attorneys who have given their time and expertise to right those wrongs in a case they’re not even on of doing it for fame and publicity.

Maybe if they didn't need to go on Twitter, ohh excuse me, the cesspool now known as X or podcasts and instead saved their expertise for the courtroom, the hearings and God willing the trial. But since they want to use social media to try the contempt hearing and weight in heavily on what the judge should rule on the motions or she'll be wrong....again can't save it for the courtroom? What kind of a job are they doing? How are they presenting their expertise on X? A lot of it sure sounds like self-promotion to me. AJMO

 

[Emma Peel]

So, what do we make of the 13 additional Indiana Lawyers entering the Contempt proceedings as Defense witnesses and affiants?

'cuz, now we know that's happening. With 4 of them on the witness stand.

And - also - from today's filings, it appears the Judge took immediate notice and immediate action - issuing (an immediate) Order that these witness' exhibits be submitted March 7th ...

eta:
that should be 10 additional Indiana lawyers and 3 are LE-related or otherwise matter-related.

 

[sunshineray]

eta:
mea culpa - it be only 10 additional Indiana lawyers;
3 may be LE-related or otherwise matter-related.

Their own personal SC ready to defend their contemptuous and negligent behaviors? Just my wild guess.

 

[Emma Peel]

https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/file...-to-rule-on-motion-and-delay-of-judgments.pdf

Introduction

These Trial Rules are officially titled “Failure to rule on motion” and “Time for holding issue under advisement; delay of entering a judgment” but are commonly known as the “lazy judge” rules. Trial court clerks perform an important duty under these rules, and there are significant differences in procedures between the two rules.

*yawn*

 

[WildHuncher]

I think the accomplices, if there were any, maybe were part of the lure to get the girls on the trails...possibly a meet and greet. Just some thoughts.

The P doesn’t seem to be talking much about accomplices. Has anyone walked McLeland’s statement back?

 

[Emma Peel]

The P doesn’t seem to be talking much about accomplices. Has anyone walked McLeland’s statement back?

IMO, the gag order relieves this the State from updating (should there be an update).

 

[susiQ]

The P doesn’t seem to be talking much about accomplices. Has anyone walked McLeland’s statement back?

Not sure, but why would someone else walk back McLeland’s statement? Surely he could do that for himself.

Regardless, Tobe Leazenby stated in his deposition that he believed at least two people were involved. Strange (or not), Tony Liggett was adamant during his deposition, the day prior to Leazenby’s, that he believed it was done by only one person, RA. However, during Leazenby’s deposition he was asked if anyone else on the force shared his belief that more than one person was involved in the murders and he answered yes, that Tony Liggett shared his belief and they often spoke of it privately. Interesting. Either Leazenby is lying about Liggett under oath or Liggett lied under oath in his deposition. Awkward. (Franks Memorandum pg 43, 44)

I would hazard a guess that there are other LE that believe this was done by more than one person. It appears NMcL was merely echoing that sentiment. JMHO

 

[sunshineray]

https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/file...-to-rule-on-motion-and-delay-of-judgments.pdf





*yawn*

Well with everything JG has had to and still needs to contend with, concerning the defendant's right to a fair trial and competent attorneys (everyone should strive to remember, IMO, the D is suppose to be more concerned and occupied with their client, not themselves), lazy is not what I would consider JG to be, MHO.

The SC did rule she had no bias yet she keeps being blamed for AB & BR's predicament. Isn't it time for the D to admit that the actions they helped to foster and committed themselves actually do have consequences, like a hearing? If this non-bias judge decides it's fair and right, she will duly rule for sanction. If she not to, she won't.

What are they afraid of if the SC has ruled, the judge has no bias. It seems just like the D wanted no evidence heard and chose to withdraw, they want no truth to be told in this hearing coming up and want to bar evidence.

Isn't it the non-bias judge's duty to ruled on motions and judge evidence at the hearing? The D needs to follow procedure too, no?

AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

IMO, the gag order relieves this the State from updating (should there be an update).

IMO, it's their swore duty not to because of the gag order. Discovery delivered to the D, not the public, is the appropriate action.This case is supposed to be tried in court not the media, hence the gag order. It may seem a bit murky of a cincept because the D has chosen to violate that order so many times. Just some thoughts.

 

[snooptroop88]

I think the accomplices, if there were any, maybe were part of the lure to get the girls on the trails...possibly a meet and greet. Just some thoughts.

His actual quote is that investigators didn't feel RA acted alone, right? I'd be leaning in a different direction with that, more towards the unknown (to this point) persons possibly being the parties that executed the actual murders. That would mean BG/alleged RA-- while he plays a crucial role, is intricately bound up in the overall crime itself, and can still be found guilty under the felony murder rule-- may not have been the one who executed the actual murders themselves. Does any investigator directly call these unnamed collaborators "accomplices"? I'm not seeing that exact wording in what I'm viewing, but not sure if that "accomplice" wording is elsewhere. The "accomplice" wording would imply a more peripheral role. And let me make it clear, even if this is the case where BG didn't hold the weapon that brought about the death, BG is still in my mind a murderer. He may or may not have had his hand on the actual instrument used to cause death, but he is part of this horrifying conspiracy, and that conspiracy was all about murdering these two poor little girls. The conspiracy at this point is speculative, but even if it's reality and it's revealed BG never had his hand on the instrument of death, he is in my mind a murderer nonetheless.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm a bit stuck on these recent plays from the Bench (both at the same time yesterday):

Gull's decision on Ausbrook's Dismissal Motion was:
"Reviewed and denied without hearing". (No reason provided.)

and

Gull's decision on Hennessey's Clarification Request as to the Prosecution's Contempt Motion was:
"Reviewed and denied because the Court has scheduled a hearing on the State's pleading."


As to Ausbrook's Dismissal Motion (the 1st):
Appreciate that this is a brush-off. Now there's a record that Gull acknowledges she reviewed the Ausbrook legal arguments related to the Prosecutions erroneously formed Contempt thing-a-ma-jig. I feel like Ausbrook takes the (relative) win that his filing was reviewed and formally acknowledged.

As to Hennessey's Clarification (the 2nd):
This one's not as straightforward. Are there three possible interpretations?

a) Is Gull saying that she's scheduled a "clarification/procedural" hearing as to the State's Pleading format itself? (Given the Ausbrook acknowledgement.)

b) Or is Gull saying she's holding a hearing and she'll figure it out from the bench so be ready to proceed regardless.

c) Or is Gull's decision that she is holding the Contempt hearing and therefore Hennessey's Clarification Request is irrelevant?

Any thoughts?

(also, @AugustWest who just popped in the thread not too long ago ... )

I suspect personally it's option B and they can simply make these arguments at the hearing.

 

[sunshineray]

exactly.

To my eye, it seems we have a play for Ausbrook (interlocutory/Habeas) ... and a play for Wieneke (assuming she'd go to SCOIN returning to the prior case with some type of interpretation motion).
So, I'm wondering - which play first? Or will they move on both?

Totally self-serving and ludicrous considering we're talking about a hearing to get to the truth of the matter. Why IS the D so afraid of having this hearing?

 

[mrjitty]

!!
I meant to mention Ausbrook; and so I'll eta here:

Ausbrook's hovering over the Contempt Motion ... for appellate purposes.
Does a civil contempt fine warrant Ausbrook's attention? (I don't think so.)
So what does?

Ausbook is an academic as I understand it. It's common enough for these professors to get involved in cases where it is their specialist area. Way back he appeared to be fascinated about the case and a potential habeas application down the track - as many here know, he gave an extended murdersheet interview on this topic.

My guess is this is why he is involved - because he is interested in the constitutional impacts on RA and a potential habeas (maybe). I suspect he is less interested in whether <modedit> Rozzi get sanctioned per se.

 

[sunshineray]

His actual quote is that investigators didn't feel RA acted alone, right? I'd be leaning in a different direction with that, more towards the unknown (to this point) persons possibly being the parties that executed the actual murders. That would mean BG/alleged RA-- while he plays a crucial role, is intricately bound up in the overall crime itself, and can still be found guilty under the felony murder rule-- may not have been the one who executed the actual murders themselves. Does any investigator directly call these unnamed collaborators "accomplices"? I'm not seeing that exact wording in what I'm viewing, but not sure if that "accomplice" wording is elsewhere. The "accomplice" wording would imply a more peripheral role. And let me make it clear, even if this is the case where BG didn't hold the weapon that brought about the death, BG is still in my mind a murderer. He may or may not have had his hand on the actual instrument used to cause death, but he is part of this horrifying conspiracy, and that conspiracy was all about murdering these two poor little girls. The conspiracy at this point is speculative, but even if it's reality and it's revealed BG never had his hand on the instrument of death, he is in my mind a murderer nonetheless.

I thought it was, there may be others involved? At trial, it seems, we may find out what RA did from RA's own mouth.

 

[mrjitty]

RSBM

@girlhasnoname

In their written opinion, the SC judges were not unequivocally stating that JG was unbiased (IMO), but rather that the Defense had not met the burden required by the applicable Indiana rule. Namely, that Defense had not identified specific facts showing bias/prejudice. The judges weren't saying that JG was not, in fact, biased. They also weren't saying she was. Rather, they were stating that the Defense had not highlighted any facts that would lead to such a conclusion of bias/prejudice. The only showing of facts on record to support such was the adverse ruling JG made regarding the DQ.

The Court stated the rule(s) as follows:

• We begin with the presumption that a trial judge is unbiased. Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. 2002).
• To overcome that presumption, the party seeking disqualification must identify facts reflecting the judge’s actual bias or prejudice. Id.
• Our law is well settled that “[p]rejudice is not inferred from adverse judicial rulings.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 269 (Ind. 2014)
• "...judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” Noble v. State, 725 N.E.2d 842, 848 (Ind. 2000)

So, the courts of Indiana start from the presumption of judicial impartiality, and one must then specifically outline the facts which the defendant feel show alleged bias.

Anyways, not trying to argue or be difficult. But the distinction is important.

See at pg. 15: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisi...w0N5f1k5NjXezrOt02MdSk7tzOjXnR6SVtncFrbE60HI0

Thanks for this post.

It was interesting reading the cases cited in response on this issue, that bias seemed to always require an external factor to the case. e.g the Judge had been involved in an election campaign with a party or a personal / professional relationship.

Wieneke didn't cite a single case that supported her argument for removal.

I think the defence still have the problem that they are relying on Gull's adverse decisions to allege bias. Like not holding a Franks Hearing is an adverse decision at the end of the day?

 

[sunshineray]

Ausbook is an academic as I understand it. It's common enough for these professors to get involved in cases where it is their specialist area. Way back he appeared to be fascinated about the case and a potential habeas application down the track - as many here know, he gave an extended murdersheet interview on this topic.

My guess is this is why he is involved - because he is interested in the constitutional impacts on RA and a potential habeas (maybe). I suspect he is less interested in whether <modedit> Rozzi get sanctioned per se.

Well that would be a refreshing twist, to have an attorney who's involved because of the defendant and not the defendant's attorneys. JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Well that would be a refreshing twist, to have an attorney who's involved because of the defendant and not the defendant's attorneys. JMO

hes an interesting guy doing interesting work for sure.

 

[mrjitty]

Well that would be a refreshing twist, to have an attorney who's involved because of the defendant and not the defendant's attorneys. JMO

at law school you come across these professors who built their whole career about specialist topics so they are often consulted on cases.

oscar pistorius case vets will remember Prof James Grant was an active commentator as well as other academics

 

[katydid23]

How exactly can EF’s admission to being there be a false confession?

Easy---it could be a false confession if he did not kill her or aid in
the crime.

He had guilty knowledge of the CS before those details were even known by the public.

Did he have 'guilty' knowledge though? How do we know that for a fact?
Could he maybe have 'knowledge' innocently, accidentally or through gossip or even fed to him with bad intent?

It will be left to be seen whether or not LE followed through on the DNA testing

If someone wilfully confessed to the crime, had some knowledge about the crime scene, and was willing to give their DNA, why wouldn't LE follow through on that testing?

RA had not been arrested yet so it was not exculpatory or in conflict with their narrative.

and if those results are even available. LE appear to have a knack for losing exculpatory evidence. JMHO.

IF LE had matching DNA proving someone's guilt, why would they try to hide that? What would they gain from that?

And what about the forensics team and the DNA experts who matched the DNA? Are they just keeping mum about it too?

The DNA Lab informed the detectives of the match with EF's DNA and the crime scene==== Years go by and nothing happens and the DNA techs just shrug and ignore it?

 

[katydid23]

LE, ISP and FBI people. They've all conspired over 6 years to frame one innocent, nobody CVS worker for the heck of it. We're not talking 1,2 or 3 people, we're talking about dozens upon dozens of agents and employees from various agencies all working in conjunction to frame RA, who himself has since confessed to the murders.

They are ALL Odinists. The FBI Special agents wear the Odin patches on their blazers. I'm pretty sure Agent Grusing wore one during his testimony in the Mark Redwine trial.

We know that there were searchers that came upon the bodies and the CS. Of course, someone will tell one person and so on and so on. That is unstoppable, human nature. How do we know EF knew it before it was known by the public? That is a story repeated by the sister 2 weeks after the crime. Wasn't it circulating on SM at one time early on?

Speaking of conspiracies, I can think of one that makes more sense than the vast conspiracy which would include the FBI,
the ISP, the Delphi detectives and the DNA lab.

What if a couple of people close to EF wanted to cash in on the reward?

My whole point was we don't know anything about what the State has or hasn't done in terms of ruling out POI's, nor are they required to disclose that information to the public.

MOO

Yes, they have no reason to disclose those findings to the public. They keep it organised in the case file and might pull some of it out for the trial, if need be. JMO