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

[New Penny]

Yes it sure does seem that way. Will there be a 5th FM I wonder?

After reading that latest Frank’s they just get more and more desperate to blame anybody bar RA. It’s absolutely pathetic and clearly won’t work.

Moo

I’m dying to know what the search warrant uncovered! The D is DESPERATE to get it thrown out!

 

[vinayd]

I’m dying to know what the search warrant uncovered! The D is DESPERATE to get it thrown out!

Prob that pesky phone (burner IMO) showing up in the data dumps.

 

[EOA]

Sunshineray: fyi re your question on p.37…(struggling with the multi-quote function) the OP is referring to page 23 of the In Camera Proccedings transcript (the In-Chamber hearing predicating attorney dismissal) where Rozzi represents what RA would’ve said if JG was willing to hear him, and mentioning that RA has in fact been transported to this hearing and could speak if desired…

COURT: “So of course that’s your representation that that’s what he would say if he were brought in here. I can’t imagine the DOC being comfortable bringing him into my office. I would not be comfortable having him in my office.”

 

[vinayd]

What did the investigators lie about in the PCA? A nd what's your proof for that, the FM?

The "lies" go something like. "it was a tan jacket" "no a black jacket" "it's a blue jacket".
Then something like "It's an old chevy" "no a smart car" "no a purple pt cruiser".

 

[sunshineray]

The "lies" go something like. "it was a tan jacket" "no a black jacket" "it's a blue jacket".
Then something like "It's an old chevy" "no a smart car" "no a purple pt cruiser".

Witness testimony is just that witness testimony. There is cross examination at trial. Those are not the lies I was speaking about.

 

[vinayd]

From 1/22/2024 BBM:
Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

01/22/2024

Order Issued The Court, having had defendant's Motion for Franks Hearing (filed September 18, 2023), the Memorandum in Support of the Accused's Motion for Franks Hearing (filed September 18, 2023), defendant's Supplemental Motion for Franks Hearing (filed October 2, 2023), Defendant's Additional Franks Notice (filed October 3, 2023), the State's Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (filed June 13, 2023), and the State's Second Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (filed September 25, 2023) under advisement, now denies the Defendant's Motion for a Franks Hearing. The Court finds the Affidavit submitted in support of the issuance of the search warrant contained information that a reasonable belief existed that evidence of the murders would be found in the defendant's home and vehicles. The Court does not find that the Affidavit submitted false statements or that the Affiant omitted statements with reckless disregard, nor does the Court find that the Affiant intended to mislead the Judge by failing to present information. As the Court has found the Affidavit for issuance of the search warrant was valid, the search itself was reasonable and legal under Indiana law and Fourth Amendment case law. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, IN (filed May 19, 2023) is also denied based upon all the pleadings, memorandums, and exhibits previously submitted in support of the request for a Franks hearing. Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics (filed June 13, 2023) is reviewed and denied without hearing. The Court finds the evidence contained in Defendant's Exhibits A and B attached to the Motion is relevant and admissible. The Court further finds the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, and that the evidence will not confuse or mislead the jury. Defendant's Motion to Transfer (filed January 12, 2024) taken under advisement pending the State's response, if any, and a hearing to be set. State's Motion to Amend Information (filed January 18, 2024) will be set for a remote hearing. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

 

[vinayd]

Witness testimony is just that witness testimony. There is cross examination at trial. Those are not the lies I was speaking about.

I agree. I was mentioning that's what the OP was referencing in the Franks footnotes. Judge already said she isn't tossing the SW.

 

[sunshineray]

I agree. I was mentioning that's what the OP was referencing in the Franks footnotes. Judge already said she isn't tossing the SW.

And she may just have to say it a few more times before trial

 

[Cyber sleuth]

It's not "new exculpatory" evidence that Libby's phone was pinging all over the place. MP told us that in the beginning. This is the reason they want a Franks this time.

And Pings when there are 2 cell towers “all over the place” does not mean the phone was moving.

Sunshineray: fyi re your question on p.37…(struggling with the multi-quote function) the OP is referring to page 23 of the In Camera Proccedings transcript (the In-Chamber hearing predicating attorney dismissal) where Rozzi represents what RA would’ve said if JG was willing to hear him, and mentioning that RA has in fact been transported to this hearing and could speak if desired…

COURT: “So of course that’s your representation that that’s what he would say if he were brought in here. I can’t imagine the DOC being comfortable bringing him into my office. I would not be comfortable having him in my office.”

Me either. I’d rather have a bear.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

From 1/22/2024 BBM:
Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

01/22/2024

Order Issued The Court, having had defendant's Motion for Franks Hearing (filed September 18, 2023), the Memorandum in Support of the Accused's Motion for Franks Hearing (filed September 18, 2023), defendant's Supplemental Motion for Franks Hearing (filed October 2, 2023), Defendant's Additional Franks Notice (filed October 3, 2023), the State's Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (filed June 13, 2023), and the State's Second Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (filed September 25, 2023) under advisement, now denies the Defendant's Motion for a Franks Hearing. The Court finds the Affidavit submitted in support of the issuance of the search warrant contained information that a reasonable belief existed that evidence of the murders would be found in the defendant's home and vehicles. The Court does not find that the Affidavit submitted false statements or that the Affiant omitted statements with reckless disregard, nor does the Court find that the Affiant intended to mislead the Judge by failing to present information. As the Court has found the Affidavit for issuance of the search warrant was valid, the search itself was reasonable and legal under Indiana law and Fourth Amendment case law. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, IN (filed May 19, 2023) is also denied based upon all the pleadings, memorandums, and exhibits previously submitted in support of the request for a Franks hearing. Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics (filed June 13, 2023) is reviewed and denied without hearing. The Court finds the evidence contained in Defendant's Exhibits A and B attached to the Motion is relevant and admissible. The Court further finds the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, and that the evidence will not confuse or mislead the jury. Defendant's Motion to Transfer (filed January 12, 2024) taken under advisement pending the State's response, if any, and a hearing to be set. State's Motion to Amend Information (filed January 18, 2024) will be set for a remote hearing. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

Yes and the experienced judge had the franks for 3 months and able to read and examine all the footnotes and attached depositions. We have not.

 

[girlhasnoname]

All of these Motions being filed at the last minute are not uncommon. The State in its Motion in Limine are just trying to keep the side show theatrics to a minimum. If there is a reasonable relevancy possibility, I believe the Judge will allow it. If the D cannot produce information to support relevancy, then it won't. Looks like a hearing is scheduled now.

This happens in cases, it keeps the jury from hearing outrageous remarks and unfounded rumor and keeps objections and sidebars with the Judge more limited and the case to proceed by both the P and D.

The D Motion 4th Franks? The D SURE DOESN'T want something mighty important from the SW presented, even more than RA's 20+ confessions IMO. I believe it is the solid piece of information linking RA directly to these murders.

The rest, meh, reek of last minute desperation because they are simply not ready, as I've stated for months now and I know you are all sick of me saying.

ALL JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Prob that pesky phone (burner IMO) showing up in the data dumps.

In the LISK case they have surveillance pics of Rex buying burner phones. Wonder if they traced an unidentified phone number on the trails that day back to the same place one of the search warrant phones collected came from? Maybe a store's records link trail number and a RA phone's number being brought the. same day, same place? Just some thoughts

 

[Cyber sleuth]

All of these Motions being filed at the last minute are not uncommon. The State in its Motion in Limine are just trying to keep the side show theatrics to a minimum. If there is a reasonable relevancy possibility, I believe the Judge will allow it. If the D cannot produce information to support relevancy, then it won't. Looks like a hearing is scheduled now.

This happens in cases, it keeps the jury from hearing outrageous remarks and unfounded rumor and keeps objections and sidebars with the Judge more limited and the case to proceed by both the P and D.

The D Motion 4th Franks? The D SURE DOESN'T want something mighty important from the SW presented, even more than RA's 20+ confessions IMO. I believe it is the solid piece of information linking RA directly to these murders.

The rest, meh, reek of last minute desperation because they are simply not ready, as I've stated for months now and I know you are all sick of me saying.

ALL JMO

I believe they found devastating evidence against the defendant during the SW.
JMO

 

[Salah11]

The rest, meh, reek of last minute desperation because they are simply not ready, as I've stated for months now and I know you are all sick of me saying.

ALL JMO

Yes they really need to get ready for trial and stop wasting productivity with yet another Frank’s IMO.

Them continuously trying to find a scapegoat to reflect away from RA just isn’t working and comes across as desperation.

Moo

 

[sunshineray]

RA still needs to explain why his phone number doesn't show up on the trails that day, if he was watching his stock ticker while there. Maybe he has by saying he got a different phone since and threw that one out?

 

[TTF14]

Sunshineray: fyi re your question on p.37…(struggling with the multi-quote function) the OP is referring to page 23 of the In Camera Proccedings transcript (the In-Chamber hearing predicating attorney dismissal) where Rozzi represents what RA would’ve said if JG was willing to hear him, and mentioning that RA has in fact been transported to this hearing and could speak if desired…

COURT: “So of course that’s your representation that that’s what he would say if he were brought in here. I can’t imagine the DOC being comfortable bringing him into my office. I would not be comfortable having him in my office.”

THANK YOU! I've been meaning to search for this but keep forgetting!

So, Fran Gull isn't biased? B.S. (that's an abbreviation for a curse word, not someone's initials!)

IMO MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Sunshineray: fyi re your question on p.37…(struggling with the multi-quote function) the OP is referring to page 23 of the In Camera Proccedings transcript (the In-Chamber hearing predicating attorney dismissal) where Rozzi represents what RA would’ve said if JG was willing to hear him, and mentioning that RA has in fact been transported to this hearing and could speak if desired…

COURT: “So of course that’s your representation that that’s what he would say if he were brought in here. I can’t imagine the DOC being comfortable bringing him into my office. I would not be comfortable having him in my office.”

I've often wondered why she was not comfortable with the thought of having him in her office. RA was surrounded with big, burly LE (carrying guns?) and he was leg shackled and his arms were somehow shackled to his body. I think the chances of him physically harming her would have been very, very low. IMO

 

[TTF14]

And Pings when there are 2 cell towers “all over the place” does not mean the phone was moving.

Me either. I’d rather have a bear.

But how did he know that night that it was "pinging" anywhere? I thought Libby hadn't reloaded Find My Phone or any other type of tracking app, which is why Becky was on the phone with AT&T trying to get them to ping her phone and they said they couldn't do it.

IMO MOO

 

[sunshineray]

THANK YOU! I've been meaning to search for this but keep forgetting!

So, Fran Gull isn't biased? B.S. (that's an abbreviation for a curse word, not someone's initials!)

IMO MOO

How does that prove bias?

 

[vinayd]

Is it normal for a judge to bring a defendant in her chambers during any course of the trial? I think esp since this was an informal meeting with her throwing them off the case. There would be no reason to bring in the defendant since his attorneys spoke for him and were on their way out. Her comfortability is her business. But I understand if people feel this is her showing bias. She has seen the evidence, we have not.

In Chambers Transcript 10-19-23