Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #192

[m00c0w]

It's not a vigorous defense. They are just spinning their wheels now. It would be considered a vigorous defense if they had pivoted with each motion and brought up different, more relevant legal arguments each time. But they kept throwing back the same unsuccessful, dead end arguments. They were wasting time and energy, not putting up a vigorous defense, IMO.

A vigorous defense would probably look more like trying to suppress the search warrant based on RA having an alibi for the time of the murders… An alibi corroborated by employer records, cell phone data, witness statements, video, receipts, purchases… Rehashing the same fantastic claims about Odinists is obviously not working and I don’t understand why they keep trying to push that one particular narrative.

Further, it’s definitely interesting how some will 100% buy into the Odinist theory with very little actual evidence (circumstantial included)… a theory based mostly on speculation and innuendo… yet also feel that the trove of evidence against RA is basically nothing and the state has basically no case.

JMO

 

[Salah11]

I feel like there is misinformation and distorted facts on both sides.

Allowing both sides to present their facts seems fair to me. She should hear them, make a ruling and put her opinion on record. Just make it a done deal. That would put balance to any idea that she is biased against RA.

MOO

BBM

You keep stating this and do you have a verified source to back up such claims?


Indiana Surpreme court obviously don’t agree.

Delphi murders | Indiana Supreme Court refuses to remove special judge Frances Gull

The ruling on July 19 echoes the court's prior ruling rejecting the calls to remove the judge made by lawyers for the suspect, Richard Allen.

www.wthr.com

​

 

[katydid23]

I wasn't aware they filed a fifth Franks motion.

I was referring to their filing late this afternoon, where they restated all their complaints and asked AGAIN for the Judge to suppress much of the evidence and allow their Odinist nonsense.

 

[m00c0w]

I feel like there is misinformation and distorted facts on both sides.

Allowing both sides to present their facts seems fair to me. She should hear them, make a ruling and put her opinion on record. Just make it a done deal. That would put balance to any idea that she is biased against RA.

MOO

The onus is on the defense to meet the barebones requirements for the hearing. It’s quite a high bar, with a pretty rigid test - the hearing isn’t something a judge just grants on a whim.

They could not meet the standard with straightforward facts. Granting a hearing based on what was presented would have been incredibly biased.

JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I feel like there is misinformation and distorted facts on both sides.

Allowing both sides to present their facts seems fair to me. She should hear them, make a ruling and put her opinion on record. Just make it a done deal. That would put balance to any idea that she is biased against RA.

MOO

Both sides did get to present their “facts”. It was in filed motion form. The defense had hundreds of pages in 4 separate Franks and the state had their response in much more prudent form.
The judge took ample time to review and re-review the facts and made a ruling on record.
The defense failed to meet the necessary burden of proof.
All my opinion.

 

[statt#1]

It's interesting to me that there is a camp that wants justice yet supports a DT that wants to throw out key evidence....logic precludes me from understanding this one

 

[TTF14]

Both sides did get to present their “facts”. It was in filed motion form. The defense had hundreds of pages in 4 separate Franks and the state had their response in much more prudent form.
The judge took ample time to review and re-review the facts and made a ruling on record.
The defense failed to meet the necessary burden of proof.
All my opinion.

I would have liked to see some testimony under oath, particularly from Tony Liggett.

IMO MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Yes, getting evidence thrown out would, IMO, affect the case. What would this world be like for children and young teens should 'evidence' not be able to be presented in a trial? How many would be safe if defense could simply get evidence of murder thrown out? All these murderers walking around free because evidence is thrown out. There was no reason for a hearing, a gun was found at Richard Allen's home that matched a bullet from the crime scene. Why, why would that get thrown out? Why shouldn't a jury hear it?

So, get eye witness thrown out, get Richard Allen's statement that he was there during the window thrown out, get the video of him on the bridge thrown out, get his confessions thrown out, get his bullet and gun thrown out. What about Libby and Abby?

IMO the only evidence that should be thrown out in any case is when a person's constitutional rights are ignored. Sometimes I'm really torn on some of these cases I follow; I feel the accused is guilty but LE possibly screwed up in getting the evidence.

For me, I need solid evidence in order to send a person to prison for the rest of his life. This case hasn't gotten to that point, IMO.

 

[justtrish]

I was referring to their filing late this afternoon, where they restated all their complaints and asked AGAIN for the Judge to suppress much of the evidence and allow their Odinist nonsense.

I think if they wanted this Odinist theory in, they should have presented FACTS at the hearing so the judge could consider it instead of just writing another filing requesting something they needed to show proof for and didn't, in the actual hearing they had for this very purpose.

 

[TTF14]

It's interesting to me that there is a camp that wants justice yet supports a DT that wants to throw out key evidence....logic precludes me from understanding this one

Maybe logic precludes you from understanding because you already have RA convicted in your mind. Many of us don't yet because there hasn't been a trial.

If the wrong person (or not everyone involved) is convicted for this crime, it is not justice for Abby and Libby.

IMO MOO

 

[ClearAhead]

Allowing a Franks hearing based on misinformation, distortion of facts, and sheer speculation would be quite biased.

MOO

Indeed. My understanding…. If the D want a Frank’s hearing they first were required to prove that LE lied when obtaining the SW based on FACTS, which they failed to do. But if they had, a Frank’s hearing would be held to determine if the results of the SW would be allowed as evidence or not.

The purpose of a Frank’s motion is not to request a hearing to determine if LE lied. It’s not bias on behalf of the judge - the D failed to get it past the starting gate.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

I would have liked to see some testimony under oath, particularly from Tony Liggett.

IMO MOO

Regarding what, exactly? Wasn’t he already deposed?

 

[FrostedGlass]

It's interesting to me that there is a camp that wants justice yet supports a DT that wants to throw out key evidence....logic precludes me from understanding this one

Key evidence that's subjective, has no Chain of Custody and may have been found after the crime scene was unsecured.

 

[justtrish]

It's interesting to me that there is a camp that wants justice yet supports a DT that wants to throw out key evidence....logic precludes me from understanding this one

And RA puts himself on the trail that day and on the bridge AND in the clothing that was seen capture by a victim on her phone and he told LE he had a specific gun. So to me that alone would be enough for a SW for his house.

Yet the argument to throw out the SW is because LE didn't detail their entire investigation of every person related to Odinism in the SW request for RA? They don't need to detail the entire case in a SW.. why would they? They only need to say why they feel a SW is needed for the specific person they are requesting the SW on. They did that and it was granted. There was no trying to hid anything because the SW is not the place to detail every suspect they looked at and how the investigation unfolded from day 1.

LE could be looking at 10 other people at the same time they are looking at RA and it still doesn't make a SW for RAs house void because it could be one of these other 10 people also.

 

[katydid23]

I feel like there is misinformation and distorted facts on both sides.

Allowing both sides to present their facts seems fair to me. She should hear them, make a ruling and put her opinion on record.

She has done exactly that. She answered each and every accusation the D made in a prior ruling. She explained why she could not find in their favour in great detail.

Then they filed more FM's with the same claims and accusations. It makes no sense.

Just make it a done deal. That would put balance to any idea that she is biased against RA.

MOO

The SCOIN already said they did not find any bias.

 

[FrostedGlass]

The onus is on the defense to meet the barebones requirements for the hearing. It’s quite a high bar, with a pretty rigid test - the hearing isn’t something a judge just grants on a whim.

They could not meet the standard with straightforward facts. Granting a hearing based on what was presented would have been incredibly biased.

JMO

I'm no legal expert so my question is: Considering he's still innocent in the eyes of the law, is it a horrible thing if she would have allowed one hearing that would appear to favor the defendant?

Shouldn't Richard Allen be innocent in her eyes?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I said it was a large part; not the only part.

There are 2 versions of his time at the trails, there are multiple versions of what a man was seen wearing, many people thought poor RL looked just like the little guy on Libby's video, a person must have been out of his mind to make that many confessions. IMO we've already seen most of the State's case.

To this day, the image of fitting RL into RA's little jeans and boots cracks me up.

IMO this judge should do everything possible to show she is not biased.

RA told DD according to his note that he was at the trail between 13:30-15:30 on Feb 13th. In his interview with LE RA stated he was there between 1:30 and 3:30. I believe the only other place that claims he was there from Noon to 1:30 is the Franks Memo. Is that still correct?

I never believed RL was a serious POI. Too old, too tall, and his body build was completely different to me.

The SCOIN stated in their findings that SJG was not biased. I am attaching the actual document in case anyone wants to read through it.

It's been awhile and plainly states that SJG had reasonable cause to be concerned about the actions of R&B but hit the eject button too early.

They also found she showed no bias towards them or RA, if anything she expressed genuine concern that he was receiving proper legal representation under his 6th Amendment Right. (Due Process Gang)

Adobe Acrobat

JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

Maybe logic precludes you from understanding because you already have RA convicted in your mind. Many of us don't yet because there hasn't been a trial.

If the wrong person (or not everyone involved) is convicted for this crime, it is not justice for Abby and Libby.

IMO MOO

There is a fair bit of evidence in this case which definitely looks incriminating so that’s a reason RA certainly could be convicted.

But it’s far too soon to predict an outcome to what the future holds. What I haven’t seen yet is why is RA the wrong person, if he’s convicted? The D is good at pointing fingers of blame in every direction but fall short on proving anything.

That he’s the ‘wrong guy’ could be said of every conviction. What’s the solution, convict no one so murderers never face consequences, eliminating any wrongful convictions as well?

 

[Salah11]

RA told DD according to his note that he was at the trail between 13:30-15:30 on Feb 13th. In his interview with LE RA stated he was there between 1:30 and 3:30. I believe the only other place that claims he was there from Noon to 1:30 is the Franks Memo. Is that still correct?

I never believed RL was a serious POI. Too old, too tall, and his body build was completely different to me.

The SCOIN stated in their findings that SJG was not biased. I am attaching the actual document in case anyone wants to read through it.

It's been awhile and plainly states that SJG had reasonable cause to be concerned about the actions of R&B but hit the eject button too early.

They also found she showed no bias towards them or RA, if anything she expressed genuine concern that he was receiving proper legal representation under his 6th Amendment Right. (Due Process Gang)

Adobe Acrobat

JMO

Thank you as there is absolutely no proof she has acted anything but professionally and Documents like this back that up.


The only ones who have acted poorly throughout have been the defence, who have made a mockery out of Libby and Abby’s memories with their behaviour. Let’s not forget their team hijacking the Hashtag, which was specifically for justice for the girls and loved ones and the family had to speak about it. It's just deplorable!

Moo

 

[TTF14]

Regarding what, exactly? Wasn’t he already deposed?

His misrepresentation of BB's and SC's witness statements.

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Franks Hearing.pdf

drive.google.com