Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #183

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
TTF14 said:
Ah ok. But why would they give it to the family? What discovery do you think should be given to them? And why?
Click to expand...
I don't think they should get anything necessarily but IME you do get the discovery packet. I know that there are a couple of letters and calls in my brother in laws case. I don't have them but see them as evidence. Just curious.
 
vinayd said:
Since she had the initial gall to remove them. To me that means she meant it then but had to reel back and do it correctly. Which is the right thing to do. So after the States Motion to compel & the hearing I think it could happen.

Let me say I think only Andy. I think Rozzi and Auger will go to trial alone. I think both parties will receive sanctions. I wasn't mad at the defense filing today that basically said "deny it all it's too broad". I think the State is limited in what they will write out. They want the evidence to speak at trial and will take a few sanctions to get it done.

ETA. Yes they were just on this past Sunday. It's free on courttv.com. @TTF14
Click to expand...
She had to reel it back in because it was unconstitutional to remove them in the first place. Her decision on their removal violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

"1. Court-appointed counsel may be disqualified only as a last resort after considering the prejudice to the defendant." at B1 here:


We won't see anything about those sanctions until after trial. A decision would prejudice the trial, especially at this late of a date.
 
Vaderman said:
I've long thought that this would never make it to trial and RA, if guilty, would eventually plead out. With the trial apparently imminent, what are the odds he ends up making a plea within the next two (?) weeks. Is it too late to be offered a plea? What would that look like?
Click to expand...
He could be offered a deal or ask for one even during trial no? So long as before the jury is sent to deliberate?
 
vinayd said:
Not if they are removed tomorrow. I'll begin the refreshing on mycase at 8am early! If she removes them, what's next? Can she reinstate the other team she had in place? Or have they jeopardized it by appearing on CourtTv etc?
Click to expand...
There’s a decision coming tomorrow on that contempt? I’m way out of the loop!
 
so the RA team could be thrown off the case again today?

That would be mind boggling so close to trial. I am now fully invested in them falling flat on their face at trial when they try and blame 20 other random people even though RA was quite clearly there at that time and dressed similarly.

MOO
 
Last edited:
FrostedGlass said:
I think it will end on the day it's scheduled to end. Period. I have no idea how she will divide the time between the P and the D. I think she'll cut out a lot of what the D plans to present.
Click to expand...
I don't think she will end it before everyone has the time they need. She cannot just say STOP and prevent the defense from finishing their case as long as they truly have viable witnesses ready for testimony.IMO
 
Last edited:
TTF14 said:
Wonder if these are new calls? Wouldn't they already have done this?
Click to expand...
I'm certain they have the copies of the calls from the prison authorities already.

I think this subpoena is to get the original audio files---that way the D cannot accuse them of editing or distorting the recordings. I already saw a couple of allegations made by some people, saying that LE and the prison guards have these tapes and can do whatever they want with the confession tapes before handing them over. JMO
 
AugustWest said:
She had to reel it back in because it was unconstitutional to remove them in the first place. Her decision on their removal violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

"1. Court-appointed counsel may be disqualified only as a last resort after considering the prejudice to the defendant." at B1 here:


We won't see anything about those sanctions until after trial. A decision would prejudice the trial, especially at this late of a date.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to answer all of our questions.

I understood the below excerpt for the SC opinion meant that the reinstatement was a done deal. Am I wrong?

Page 14 in the link below
"Because the record does not reflect disqualification was a last resort that was necessary after balancing the trial court’s concerns against the prejudice to Allen, Baldwin and Rozzi must be reinstated."

I am really disappointed that we won't hear her decision until after the trial but it makes sense for it to be held back.

 
Last edited:
TTF14 said:
Well, that answers my question about what happens if they run out of time. Do we think there will be a further "order" giving them each specific time limits? It would not be fair if Nick took 12 days and left the defense with 3 (I know that math isn't mathing but you get my point).

I'm glad to see court will go until 6 if needed and on Saturdays.
Click to expand...
I've rarely seen a case where the defense needs the same amount of time to present their case as the State does.

The prosecution needs to prove its case, and the defense gets to cross examine all those witnesses. The defense does not need to prove anything--they just need to rebut the state's case. So they will have some battling experts to rebut the State. But they will not need the same amount of time, IMO.

Both sides get same amount for opening arguments, same amount of time for closings, and typically the prosecution gets more time for their case in chief. Let's say 6-9 days for their case, 3 -6 for the defense? Just a guess, from prior trials I've seen.
 
Last edited:
layer said:
The only way I can make sense of the killer knowing of the phone and even placing it there is if it actually was a frame job. Seems kind of unlikely, but nothing is rational about this case. Perhaps Libby stuck the phone up into the toe of the shoe while taking her shoes off, and the killer just never saw it. Maybe he had them take off their shoes & socks in order to cross the creek without them getting wet. I really wonder which girl's shoe it was, and if it was wet.
Click to expand...
One of Libby's Nike shoes was found in the creek. The 'infamous' FM said Abby was fully dressed including her shoes. This leads me to believe that it would have been Libby's other Nike shoe.

I do believe it's possible they could have been carrying their shoes across, maybe Libby dropped one intentionally. I think it would be even harder to redress Abby with wet tennis shoes. JMO

My question with that scenario is BG-RA would have wanted them across the bridge, down the first hill, across the creek and to the shallow type field and out of sight for privacy as soon as possible, but taking off shoes would only take a minute or less so IDK.

Sock(s) and undergarment(s) were missing from the scene also according to the PCA. It's all so sad to imagine. :(

MOO

EBM: Corrected statement
 
Last edited:
katydid23 said:
I don't think she will end it before everyone has the time they need. She cannot just say STOP and prevent the defense from finishing their case as long as they truly have viable witnesses ready for testimony.IMO
Click to expand...
In her email to the P and D, she says: "That is the length of the trial, not "more or less."
That tells me they better plan their time wisely.

2024-04-30 - Judge Gull's Email to the Parties.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
 
Hi @vinayd I wanted to reply to your reply to me on the last thread, I’m still behind!

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182'

Bbm

In the State’s Response to the Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (3/17/2024):

8. The law enforcement geofence reports have been provided to the Defense to the best of our knowledge.

In the State’s Response to the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (3/23/2024):

7. In response to request 11, all geo-fence data in the State's possession has been provided to the Defense and is listed in the Discovery Releases. The agency responsible for the interpretation of the geo-fence data is the FBI CAST team; specifically, Special Agent Kevin Horan (retired) and Special Agent Sabric.

On 4/3/2024 in the State’s Response to the 3rd Frank’s:

“The Defense was advised on March 4th, 2023, that State witnesses specializing in geofencing data would be ISP First Sergeant Christopher Cecil, FBI Agent Kevin Horan, and/or ISP Sergent Pete Glogoza. However, the Defense filed their 3rd Motion for Franks Hearing based on "newly discovered evidence" that was available during the first discovery disclosure in October 2023 and in the second discovery disclosure after counsel was reinstated. The State witnesses for geofencing data interpretations would testify that:”
IMG_7175.jpeg

A couple of weeks later in the Motion in Limine filed 4/29/2024

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. IRE 401. Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Evidence may be excluded if it confuses the issues.
IMG_7110.jpeg

What happened between 4/3 and 4/29 when the P filed the Motion in Limine seemingly trying to silence 2 LEOs, including one of the FBI agents mentioned in the state’s previously filing who they said would testify the D’s concerns about geofencing were misconstrued/not applicable?


This is all AFTER this was cited by the D in the 3rd Frank’s Motion on 3/13/2024

8. Specifically, the defense received certain geofencing evidence that at least 3 persons were in or around the crime scene at a time while the murders were taking place (according to law enforcement timelines) and none of the owners of the phones have any connection to Richard Allen.

9. This geofencing evidence would provide evidence of any of the following scenarios:
a. Those persons walking with the phones are witnesses that would have observed the murders as they were taking place and none of them have identified Richard Allen; or

b. Those persons walking with the phones were witnesses who observed nothing, as the murders did not take place the afternoon of February 13, 2023, but the victims were taken to the crime scene after the search was called off.

c. Those persons walking with the phones were participants in the murders.

10. Said geofencing evidence was so important to somebody involved in the investigation that they created a map and plotted the movements of these persons, including movements that show that at least one of these persons was within 60-100 yards of the crime scene at a time while the murders would have been committed according to law enforcement's timelines. The phones, once again, had no connection to Richard Allen.

11. Furthermore, the map shows that the other two phones, and the persons carrying those phones, were in and around the crime scene between 12:39:54 pm and 5:49 pm on February 13, 2017.

12. That defense has sought out, but has not been provided, any documents or reports that contradict or refutes said geofencing evidence, but have not found such evidence, nor has the prosecutor provided any when defense requested reports on said geofencing.
IMG_7176.jpeg
IMG_7177.jpeg


In my opinion, the chronological order of these mentions of the FBI’s geofencing then the Motion in Limine, almost sounds like at least (Ret) Agent Horan’s geofencing analysis does not support RA as a suspect in the area at the time of the murders. Otherwise the P would be citing the FBI reports and definitely wouldn’t be mentioning any of it in the Motion in Limine. IANAL but if I was a juror this sequence of filings on the geofencing data specifically wouldn’t convince me beyond a reasonable doubt, exactly the opposite.

Who is the state’s geofencing witness now? Is there support re: geofencing data that RA is a suspect or not? Why are 2 LEOs listed in the P’s Motion in Limine?

AJMO


Sources:
3rd Franks Motion
filed by Baldwin 3/13/2024 p. 2 & 3
Third Franks Notice & Request For Franks Hearing
State's response to defendant's motion to compel and request for sanctions
filed by Mcleland 3/17/2024
Adobe Acrobat
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS p. 3 &4
filed by Mcleland 3/23/2024 10:29PM
Adobe Acrobat
States response to the 3rd Franks
filed by Mcleland 4/3/2024 p. 3
State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion
Motion in Limine
filed by Mcleland 4/29/2024
Adobe Acrobat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 213 more.
Total: 4,028 (members: 214, guests: 3,814)

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
3,814
Total visitors
4,028
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,873
Messages
17,994,621
Members
229,267
Latest member
oma13
Back
Top