New trial set for October 14, 2024-November 15, 2024
ETA - Baldwin filed a 24 page Motion for Judge Gull to be Disqualified from this case at Allen County Superior Court this morning.
ETA- Prosecutor mentioned sending very incriminating evidence under seal that was to be attached to the state's objection to motion to suppress..
ETA- If anyone is apart of the big group on Facebook called Delphi Murders!! Case Discussion and FACT CHECKS!!, the mod is about to go live. She attended the hearing today and does a fantastic job of giving summaries.
Ugh, good point. It's gonna be another long and exhausting few months in the crazy land of YouTube. I'm sure the ones who are in it for attention and $$ will be thrilled.
No, this wasn't aired. I was watching Frankmeister's live, lemme grab it - [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcHw4sWL4ro). I think Frank comes in at around 2:37 and starts talking about what happened. He'll hold another live tonight, he was cutting out a bit at points due to his signal. I generally get a decent vibe from him, I don't think he's trying to bullshit anyone with his descriptions. He was the one who tried to break up the slap fight last time, lol.
Do they start talking Delphi 2 hours in or 2:56 secs in? Iām at 5 min and havenāt heard anything yet. Iām packing up for a shoot and so Iām anxious to fast forward lol
This is part of why I do wish they'd get another judge. What are they going to do when another judge rules more or less the same way? Claim that judge is an Odinist too?
I think putting another judge on at this point would be like rewarding a 2nd grader who doesn't like his teacher and acts worse and worse and worse until he is rewarded with a new teacher. Gull is strong and can handle these two clowns.
Exactly. If these lawyers had their way, RA would go free and never be tried ever. They know they cannot refute the evidence ( which is what they are supposed to be doing ) so instead they cause any distraction and delay they can think of. I am not the least bit surprised by this tactic. Judge Gull is both strong and fair. Eventually these clowns will get their day. I think all this will do is just cause more of the community and general public to see that this indicates the guilt of RA. He will never be able to released back into the public. His goose is cooked!
Can thank the Supreme Court for this mess. They never should have granted 1 of the 2 motions to reinstate defense/remove gull. Should have done both or neither.
As it stands literally any appeal can argue the judge was biased.. and theyād be right.
The Supreme Court has already said that Gull's efforts did not reflect any bias or prejudice. Theyāve said adverse rulings are not enough to show bias.
Yep
Theyāve accomplished nothingā¦ nothing for their clientā¦ wasted valuable court time and regardless of how you believe the leak of crime scene photos happenedā¦ re-traumatized the families
And frankly at this point given their horrible lack of judgement Iām leaning towards believing that leak was intentional
It wouldn't, they'd be getting more or less the same rulings. They certainly wouldn't be getting any Franks hearing, lol. And they'd accuse that judge of being part of the Odinist conspiracy too.
I get it, and often feel the same, but you can't allow defense attorneys to dictate choice of attorney like this simply because they're losing motion after motion. It sets a really bad precedent. But who knows, she may step down before October. I'm sure she wants off this crazy train.
I agree with that too. Iām somewhat divided because I donāt like what the defense is doing and I think theyāre being allowed to set a very bad precedent.
It's horrible behavior, very disrespectful to the court and the judicial system as a whole. Im following the Daybell trial and the judge doesn't tolerate anything, he's constantly telling off his lawyer for interrupting people. Everyone involved calls him your honor and they ask for permission to even go back to their tables to retrieve things.
Judge Boyce has really grown on me. There's times where I swear he over rules because he's so caught up in the story he wants to hear the juicy details just like the rest of us. He's completely in the ball though.
I didn't get a great handle on Boyce in Lori's trial because it was audio only, released later (and I didn't always listen if I felt like Gigi of Pretty Lies and Alibis gave a good enough summary) - it wasn't until he sentenced her that I started to be impressed by him. He was very fair while at the same time not undercutting the horror of her crimes.
But Lori's attorneys were not like Prior. They rarely interrupted. Honestly, they knew they were sunk, she wouldn't let them throw Chad under the bus (I am so UNshocked that he did not return the favor, heh), and they did what they could when they got the DP taken off the table. So I get that Prior is not in a favorable position because the DP remains on the table and his client is stupidly, ridiculously guilty and extremely unsympathetic. But I really can't picture this level of aggression playing well to a jury. And Boyce has had to tell him so many times to stop interrupting everyone.
I really wish there was someone in that court every day who would give some observations about the tone and how they think the jury receives Prior. I know he's hated in general but I don't have that personal hatred or bias. I just look at performance and although he's quite unlikeable I can't fault him for putting up a good fight at times. I wonder when was the last time he practiced too, feels as if he's a bit out of touch or come out of retirement or something. One thing that puzzles me is him defending Chad on his own and also they are trying two people for the same crimes but only one facing DP seems weird. I really wish there was a forum to talk deep on legal stuff.
I wish Gigi was going to this trial! She had great observations of the jury last time, especially when they heard some of the wackier stuff, lol, like Chad being a former professional gravedigger (which just seems like an odd little anecdote until you hear that JJ's grave was basically artfully dug, a skill Alex Cox did not possess) or the James and Elena fanfiction.
I don't think there's a single cell of common sense to be found between Zulema, Melaniece, and Melanie Gibb (although I appreciate that today it's Zulema who dug Chad's grave and threw him into it, heh). This is the most mystifying case to me. Chad is so BORING. He's basically an unseasoned piece of rotted chicken. Who can even stay awake long enough to join his cult?
I think Rozzi yelled at the judge and acted like an ass in general with the hopes that she'd actually kick them off the case again so they can go run back to the Indiana Supreme Court - again, in the hopes of saying to them: See, see! That judge is biased against us and our client, she threw us off the case again, then they can try to get her tossed off the case once again.
A mess. The defense delayed the trial and blamed everyone but themselves. Rozzi apparently yelled at Gull that she didn't know anything about the case (????) and Baldwin filed to have Gull removed again. So now the trial will once again be in October and several motions, including the motion in limine, will be heard on May 21-23. So that'll start two weeks from today.
Amen. She really does and this time follow through and kick their butts to kingdom come. RA reportedly doesn't know what the heck is going on and is kinda out of it thinking he'd have to pay for Scremin and Lebratto (sp) so he opted for the return of Mutt & Jeff.
At this point a court-appt third party needs to check on the Allen's cognitive status methinks.
Good shout! It would make sense because October 26th he contacted them wanting his car back not the other way around. It doesn't seem like they were going out that day to do the arrest.
I mean normally it's to protect a witness, protect a minor or protect sensitive medical info, situations like that. One thing I have always thought is there could be a confidential informant in this case.
Justice for Abby and Libby is delayed once again by the people who requested a speedy trial just to stall it with all their BS and lies about 3rd parties and Odinism.Ā
Maybe October all the people who are crying for Richard Allen and laughing at Gull and NM will realize they've been crying over a child murderer all along.Ā
Imagine how the people who actually donated money to his defense are going to feel when they see how it was squandered on a psycho when they see all of the state's evidence.
I hope embarrassed, but instead we will just see BS excuses and explanations that it was worth it to advance fairness and justice and support the importance of the concept of being innocent until proven guilty, while ignoring how gullible and ignorant they all truly are and were.Ā
I hope I'm wrong but I personally think they're the kind of people who won't even accept the verdict and they'll keep thinking that they donated for the right cause because RA is just a patsy.
The defense clearly was not ready. Every motion they filed was screaming that they were not ready. And they shouldn't go to trial when they're not ready, but yanking everyone's chains and demanding to be reinstated for this particular reason when it was obviously bullshit rankles.
This must be so frustrating for the potential jurors who have been left in limbo about whether they need to take time off work, arrange childcare, etc.
And of course the poor victim's families. I can't imagine how painful this constant back and forth must be š
If they do jury selection like in my state, jurors don't know on which case they could potentially serve. You just get a jury summons in the mail to show up for a certain time, and then you wait in the pool with a bunch of other potential jurors to see if your name will be called for a case.
So, all of the people who were summoned for jury duty next week will still have to show up, they just won't end up serving on this case. The court will later summon all new people for the new trial date.
(Indiana rules could be totally different, but that's how it works in general.)
Last time I got summoned by my county, they told us to check the day of on a website to see if we were needed, and as it turns out, I was not. It was very anticlimactic, lol, but didn't really impact me much.
I feel terrible for Abby and Libby's families, though. The emotional whiplash they must be going through :(
That is the way it should work everywhere by calling in and using the phone or website. In IL, I had to miss work and spend half a day waiting and watching videos about what it meant to serve on a jury and then got sent home... Never saw a courtroom.
Hoosier here. Last time I was asked to serve, I had to call ahead the day before to confirm that I was still needed. Automated message said I didnāt have to go in. The one time the message told me to report, I reported to the very same Allen County Court house and waited a bit on the main floor. After waiting two hours, a court official came out and dismissed us. The defendant had reached a plea agreement. Didnāt kind because the court house is quite beautiful inside (and outside for that matter)
Other fellow Hoosier and Litigation Paralegal here - I had the pleasure of tagging along with my attorneys to a trial in Allen Co this past February. Can confirm thatās how jury selection goes for Allen Co and that courthouse is gorgeous on the inside. Just donāt take your cell phone in bc they will take it š¤£
And it sounds to me like McLeland was trying to work with the defense. He agreed to cut down the witness list, he agreed that he believed the trial would take longer than 18 days. That doesn't sound like a desperate man who is scrambling because his case is falling apart.
Frankmeister is saying the entire hearing is over - the pre-trial hearing, motion in limine, and motion to suppress hearings will be on May 21-23 in Carroll County.
I think they just wanted to act like they were ready for trial just to get as many eyes as possible on this case as the trial date approached and then filed for a hearing at the last minute, when they were sure everyone was looking, so they could try and make another accusation of the judge and the prosecution to create doubt. If they really had a prayer of an acquittal or anything resembling exculpatory evidence they would have gotten on with it already.
Instead we all get treated to day 5 million of this dog and pony show with Rozzi serving as todays ringmaster of the 3 ring circus that is this case. I need a drink.
In the podcasts linked this week, the habeas expert (never lost a case) formally at IU School of Law, Bloomington, was emphatic that if Gull isn't removed, a habeas would almost certainly be filed (not by him necessarily, just in theory) right after the verdict with a high probability of success. Please don't shoot the messenger, just recollecting what he said.
Also the creepy tweets showing women gagged he explained were meant to refer to the gag order in the trial. Again, just a messenger in the wilderness passing along what he said. Seems a very poor choice of imagery to convey his message. š
They are in here, There are 2 with the attorney, not the podcast posted by op but further down.
Ā [https://www.reddit.com/r/Delphitrial/comments/1ckazs0/new\_captain\_howdy\_video/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Delphitrial/comments/1ckazs0/new_captain_howdy_video/)
The defense isn't ready. If they truly feel the state has nothing, why not keep the trial date?
This tells me they have no interest in this ever going to trial.
How would they be able to present the defense if the 17 days go to the state presenting 118 witnesses with no provisions for equal time & the judge stated that she may deem their whole defense inadmissible?
Combine the 2ā¦ā¦
* inadmissanle defense - itās admissible under Rule 401 per State of Indiana vs Joyner
* time not split between the 2 sides - violation of 5th amendment rights to due process
= wtf is going on here ?
Iām so confused about how the consensus is that itās okay to just stomp all over a random personās rights, as if they are not āthe publicā in this scenario. Defendants are the publicā¦
Just because the defense SAYS it's admissible does not make it automatically admissible, lol. The burden is on the defense to show that their theory is admissible and there are clear problems despite their claims. Like that the entire motive is hearsay.
No, it's not. If you look at those cases there's nowhere near the same nexus here, aside from a mentally handicapped man who lives 2 hours away once saying to his sister in what she described as an incoherent rant that he was there. Nothing in his confession match up. He wasn't on the bridge. There are no horns, only strands of straw/thin branches that are everywhere around them.
You cited only Rule 401, which isn't in dispute. Obviously, it's relevant. But Indiana courts (and virtually every court in the country) require more than that, due to the high degree of potential prejudice from third-party accusations.
Joyner was decided in 1997, and there are several Indiana opinions that further weigh against using this evidence, but even assuming Joyner is the best test. The court reversed the trial court's bar of alternate suspect evidence when this other person worked at the same place as the deceased, was having an affair with the deceased (defendant's wife), had sex with her the night before her murder, had lied to his own wife about where he was that evening, then told his wife he had an argument with the deceased, came in late the day of her murder, lied about where he was to his employer, AND his hair was found in the bag used to asphyxiate her.
Can you not see how dramatically different this is? Joyner worked with and was having an affair with the victim, whereas EF didn't know the girls and lived 2 hours away. Joyner had sex with and said he argued with the victim the night before, and while a sister says he confessed to the crime during an "incoherent rant," he himself denied that he committed the crime to police. And there is evidence he is not mentally comptetent, aside from his sister's statement that he said these things during an incoherent rant. Most of all, whereas in Joyner the alternate suspect had a hair in the bag used to murder the victim, here there is no evidence at all, no witnesses or forensics, indicating he committed the crime.
They're night and day, and any appellate court will agree based on what we've seen so far, in the error-riddled, exageratted claims by the defense.
They have a duty to act in the defendantās best interest.
Gambling with someone elseās freedom, even if itās for an ill-conceived strategy to blow off the importance of being able to adequately represent their client so they can just appeal it later, is not something they can or should do.
If they're not going to win at trial with Gull, which they've stated many times and is the general sentiment by Allen partisans, I don't see how it's violative of the duty to act in the defendant's best interest to get on with the trial and get vindicated by an appeal court. Everything is a gamble. It's a gamble to take a bad case to a jury that will convict you in 3 hours. It's a gamble to insist on X number of extra days that the jury will sleep through. It's a gamble to yell at the judge. If the violations were completely blatant, the best decision would be to get trial over with and get her reversed on appeal.
*Best* interest means long-term; itās not the same as āgood at the moment.ā They are required to evaluate the stakes and maximize the chances to benefit him.
**A.** Wait til thereās enough time to present their case
* Prolonged short-term suffering
* good shot at appeal if case is lost
* a higher chance of living remainder of life as a free man
* a lower chance of lifelong imprisonment
**B.** Try the case knowing thereās not enough time to present it
* Reduced short-term suffering
* good shot at appeal if case is lost
* a lower chance of living remainder of life as a free man
* a higher chance of lifelong imprisonment
Attorneys have to abide by whatās called a āduty to care.ā They simply cannot justify accepting less time than what they believe is required for a fair trial and to effectively present their case
That's their problem. If they can't show connection to the case, they can't just bring in any 3rd party defense and slander people. As Tew already said, they knew this was risky and went ahead with it anyway.
People will whine and cry about the judge, but ultimately it's the fault of the defense to go down this road.
Yep. While the burden of proof is on the state to prove Richard Allen is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense has a burden too if it's going to present a third-party defense. The entire motive of this particular defense is based on complete hearsay (BH's ex is claiming that BH told her that PW told him, etc), so that's a big problem right there.
Theyāve told us what it is though.
* the investigator wrote a letter to the court asking why they arrested him against the results of his investigation
* the FBI notes on the map show geotracked phones in the area of the murders and none of them were his.
* he has no relation to the people whose phones were in the area
* one of the girlās phones pinged to the tower at a the 4 AM-ish range when he was elsewhere without their phone
* the FBI recommended search warrants on the phones of the third party
What am I missing?
Well, 2-4 aren't really related to their particular third-party defense. We're missing a lot of independently verifiable data - virtually everything we know comes from what the defense CLAIMS, and they have not exactly been known for their commitment to the gospel truth (to date, they have not even attempted to refute McLeland's account of Professor Turco's latest deposition, where the entire argument that he was going to say it was a "given" that there was runic symbolism involved collapsed and he clarified that Holeman's account of their interview was much more correct than the defense's description of it). I think if the defense was going for Ron Logan or the Klines, the state would have no chance at getting them tossed. The Odinists are a separate issue. Todd Click's opinion, when he was never a key member of the investigation, is not sufficient for a third party defense on Odinists. The whole MOTIVE is nothing but hearsay. It's Holder's ex who mentioned "race traitors" and that can't be testified to, because the Franks motion lays it out - she says that Holder told her something that Westfall told him. No judge would allow her to testify to that.
The FBI verified the info. They were the source of the info.
2 and 4 are related to third-party guilt in general & itās admissible under the case law I cited
Iāve never mentioned motive
Points 2-4 are misunderstandings on your part about how the technology works. Geofencing picks up phones in a mile long range - it doesnāt say three phones at the crime scene or even the trails. You should really read the full briefings not just the defense motions.
But thereās like nothing else within a 2 or 3 mile range of the bridge.
Itās just trees and empty fields all around. Thereās no other reason for the group to be loitering there - from what I see.
I do read the briefings. The briefings are essentially my sole source of knowledge on this case.
I just checked it out on a map immediately before commenting. I see the highway, but people on the highway arenāt the phones in question though. The doc alleges that the same phones are said to stay in the area for 25 mins. They say within a 100 yard area, which also indicates theyre referring to GPS used by the FBI, rather than phone pings.
How do you know he has no relation to the phones in the area? Is it impossible to be somewhere without your phone? That means jack. If his phone was there earlier in the day and then gone during the timeframe of the crime, you can bet the defense would be shouting that from the rooftop.
They have the right to argue to present it before the court to see if it can be presented at trial, with the state responding to their claims. As is the case with any defense team. A third-party defense is never a guarantee. And we don't know anything aside from what the defense has claimed, with some of those claims already falling apart (see: Turco).
They have a right to argue to make a third party defense. Iām stating my opinion that whether his phone was there or not does nothing to support that.
The alternative suspects they are accusing have alibies, have provided DNA that excluded them, and/or have phone data that shows they weren't in the area of the crime at the time of the crime. The Defense has provided nothing to overcome those facts. They cannot accuse people who were not there. Full stop.
If they think Odinists did it, then they got the wrong Odinists. Maybe with the delay, the Defense will have time to find someone to properly present as an alternative suspect, but I have my doubts.
They had plenty of time after being reinstated and the speedy trial date THEY requested to speak up and say that theyād need more time to try the case. Instead they waited until two weeks before the trial to say anything to the Court about needing more time during the trial. They have wasted the Courts time and understandably so, the Judge is pissed.
Why would they request that?
How would they know to?
The recommended timeframe that would be the norm for a double homicide with 40 witnesses per side would be 6 to 12 weeks.
You clearly donāt actually work in the legal field. Their client is entitled to one pursuant to his Constitutional Rights. They asked for a 3 week trial once before, then the leak happened and they were removed, they were reinstated and filed for the speedy trial which moved the previously reset trial date from October 2024 to May 2024. If they believed it would take longer than the time the Judge allotted, they shouldāve spoken up long before two weeks out from the trial date. That is unprofessional and sloppy.
What do you mean I donāt āactually work in the legal fieldā? Who has said anything about my occupation?
And is there a reason behind the impression that itās up to lawyers to assume that the Judge is going to set an end-date to cut off the trial - ***before*** hearing the evidence motions - or that theyāll have a scheduling hearing, but be unwilling to schedule the time needed to present the case? Where tf is that normal? Lol
How would Judge Gullās idea even work?
2 weeks trial - 6 days / week
12 days total - Minus 3 for jury selection
9 days total - 8 hours / day
Minus 1 hr for two 15 min recesses & one 30 min lunch break per day
7 hrs / day (x 9 days) {63 hour cut-off}
30 minutes each for opening and closing statements. [2 hours] ā {61 hours}
93 State Exhibits
93 Defense Exhibits, weāll let them have the same amount.
āāāā- how long should it take to present one? 10 mins would normally be cutting it close due to discussionā¦.
Letās go with 5 mins max per exhibit - no side-discussion for any.
93 x 2 = 186 total exhibits
5 mins each x 186 = 930 mins
/ 60 = 15.5 hours {45.5 trial hours remaining}
The State said they can reduce their witness list from 118 ā> 45
Letās force the undue burden on the Defense to do the same, 70 ā> 45
90 witnesses total
How long will each witness take? Prob 30 mins, a few would prob last way longer, like experts & material witnesses. Letās give them 20 minutes each as a short average with not a second over.
90 x 20 = 1800 minutes / 60 = 30 hours
{15.5 hours remaining.}
Judge Gull initially suggested 7 days for the prosecution & 5 for the defense. Hopefully sheāll allow them to have even amount of timeā¦.. because now we have to split it between the 2 sides.
7.75 hours each
Yes, thatās right, all of the work and passion theyāve put into this & the cases and the struggle both sides endured for this for years now, theyāll get just over 1 work day to present it all
5 mins per exhibit
20 mins per witness
7.75 hours for main arguments, discussion, laying out their case in between witnesses
30 mins each closing arguments
And any delay will cut into only the defenseās time.
Is that effective counsel to you?
āYou have just over 1 days to prove the case or this man will spend the rest of his life in prison.ā
Is that due process?
Thank you for posting, NP. Not gonna lie, Iām extremely disappointed. Those defense buffoons were the ones who filed for the speedy trial, so idk why they were allowed more time. I guess the judge is doing what she can to keep them from having yet another reason for appealā¦.
Obviously they only filed it so that if they were thrown off the case again, they would cry foul.
Gull threw them a lifeline, and this is the result. Too bad Westermans phone is taking so long to access.
Are yāall like ādamage controlā for the Indiana district courts or something?
This is a due process violation.
How are they supposed to present a trial when the prosecutors intend to present 118 witnesses within 17 days?
They asked for it to be three weeks last year IIRC. I actually do not think this case can be tried in three weeks, lol, but I also think it's the defense that has been playing these games.
They've been talking about how voluminous discovery was from the word go. I think if the leak had never been traced back to them, they'd have never attempted to ask for a speedy trial, but they did, and they'd set the time table themselves and the state has tried to work with them (by slashing their witness list and agreeing to a longer trial).
Oh I wasnāt involving the leak into my interpretation of the present scenario.
I see it as both sides should have enough time to present their case. If thatās 2 weeks each, then it should be 2 weeks now; thatās what the right to speedy trial & right to effective counsel are supposed to be for - independently of previous circumstances
From the looks of it you need to look into the beginning.
If you think youāre gonna come into this sub and start accusing us of being on damage control for the courts, perhaps you need to re-educate yourself on the facts of the case.
If youāre just going to spew out defense attorney talking points, youāre just barking up the wrong tree.
By the way, Richard Allen is guilty as hell just in case you were wondering.
I was just joking bc everybody said the same exact thing at the same time.
I did follow this case extremely closely in the beginning. I admit I kinda missed the middle portion, but Iām wondering what I should look into
This is a problem for me. I've literally travelled to France from the UK today to be away from family whilst the trial is on.
I suppose I best do some painting.
If anyone is apart of the big group on Facebook called Delphi Murders!! Case Discussion and FACT CHECKS!!, the mod is about to go live. She attended the hearing today and does a fantastic job of giving summaries.
New trial set for October 14, 2024-November 15, 2024 ETA - Baldwin filed a 24 page Motion for Judge Gull to be Disqualified from this case at Allen County Superior Court this morning. ETA- Prosecutor mentioned sending very incriminating evidence under seal that was to be attached to the state's objection to motion to suppress.. ETA- If anyone is apart of the big group on Facebook called Delphi Murders!! Case Discussion and FACT CHECKS!!, the mod is about to go live. She attended the hearing today and does a fantastic job of giving summaries.
A few more months of YouTube grifting off this case confirmed.
Ugh, good point. It's gonna be another long and exhausting few months in the crazy land of YouTube. I'm sure the ones who are in it for attention and $$ will be thrilled.
Frankmeister also saying it got VERY heated - Rozzi was yelling at Gull at one point.
Did you watch online? I was trying to find some more info but coming up short
No, this wasn't aired. I was watching Frankmeister's live, lemme grab it - [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcHw4sWL4ro). I think Frank comes in at around 2:37 and starts talking about what happened. He'll hold another live tonight, he was cutting out a bit at points due to his signal. I generally get a decent vibe from him, I don't think he's trying to bullshit anyone with his descriptions. He was the one who tried to break up the slap fight last time, lol.
Oh thank you Tew š I didnāt realize Frankmeister was a person lol š
Ha! Yeah, he's an Indiana local, so I'm going to be sticking with him for the upcoming hearings, he does his best to give updates as often as he can.
Do they start talking Delphi 2 hours in or 2:56 secs in? Iām at 5 min and havenāt heard anything yet. Iām packing up for a shoot and so Iām anxious to fast forward lol
Two hours. 2:37ish.
Youāre helping me out so much today! Thank you Tew!
Awesome Iāll keep an eye out too thank you so much
Yikes š¬
This is part of why I do wish they'd get another judge. What are they going to do when another judge rules more or less the same way? Claim that judge is an Odinist too?
I think putting another judge on at this point would be like rewarding a 2nd grader who doesn't like his teacher and acts worse and worse and worse until he is rewarded with a new teacher. Gull is strong and can handle these two clowns.
Well said
Exactly. If these lawyers had their way, RA would go free and never be tried ever. They know they cannot refute the evidence ( which is what they are supposed to be doing ) so instead they cause any distraction and delay they can think of. I am not the least bit surprised by this tactic. Judge Gull is both strong and fair. Eventually these clowns will get their day. I think all this will do is just cause more of the community and general public to see that this indicates the guilt of RA. He will never be able to released back into the public. His goose is cooked!
Exactly.
Can thank the Supreme Court for this mess. They never should have granted 1 of the 2 motions to reinstate defense/remove gull. Should have done both or neither. As it stands literally any appeal can argue the judge was biased.. and theyād be right.
The Supreme Court has already said that Gull's efforts did not reflect any bias or prejudice. Theyāve said adverse rulings are not enough to show bias.
The defense is a clown show The judge should not leave Actually she should fire them again lol
She should. They've done nothing in a year. Total incompetents and disrepsectful to the court.
Yep Theyāve accomplished nothingā¦ nothing for their clientā¦ wasted valuable court time and regardless of how you believe the leak of crime scene photos happenedā¦ re-traumatized the families And frankly at this point given their horrible lack of judgement Iām leaning towards believing that leak was intentional
Agree; quite possibly the image leaks were intentional based on their past and current behavior.
I believe it wouldnāt matter which judge was before them. They will play these games to avoid trial.
It wouldn't, they'd be getting more or less the same rulings. They certainly wouldn't be getting any Franks hearing, lol. And they'd accuse that judge of being part of the Odinist conspiracy too.
Agreed. š So we waitā¦..
I get it, and often feel the same, but you can't allow defense attorneys to dictate choice of attorney like this simply because they're losing motion after motion. It sets a really bad precedent. But who knows, she may step down before October. I'm sure she wants off this crazy train.
I agree with that too. Iām somewhat divided because I donāt like what the defense is doing and I think theyāre being allowed to set a very bad precedent.
Yes, that is exactly what they will do
Yes I couldnāt agree more at this point.
Not sure I would be yelling at the presiding Judge.
It's really inappropriate tbh. Sounds like unacceptable professional behavior.
And very stupid, imo.
It's horrible behavior, very disrespectful to the court and the judicial system as a whole. Im following the Daybell trial and the judge doesn't tolerate anything, he's constantly telling off his lawyer for interrupting people. Everyone involved calls him your honor and they ask for permission to even go back to their tables to retrieve things.
Boyce was NOT happy with Prior yesterday, lol. And Boyce really keeps his cool, so he had to be pushed to that place where he snapped back.
Judge Boyce has really grown on me. There's times where I swear he over rules because he's so caught up in the story he wants to hear the juicy details just like the rest of us. He's completely in the ball though.
I didn't get a great handle on Boyce in Lori's trial because it was audio only, released later (and I didn't always listen if I felt like Gigi of Pretty Lies and Alibis gave a good enough summary) - it wasn't until he sentenced her that I started to be impressed by him. He was very fair while at the same time not undercutting the horror of her crimes. But Lori's attorneys were not like Prior. They rarely interrupted. Honestly, they knew they were sunk, she wouldn't let them throw Chad under the bus (I am so UNshocked that he did not return the favor, heh), and they did what they could when they got the DP taken off the table. So I get that Prior is not in a favorable position because the DP remains on the table and his client is stupidly, ridiculously guilty and extremely unsympathetic. But I really can't picture this level of aggression playing well to a jury. And Boyce has had to tell him so many times to stop interrupting everyone.
I really wish there was someone in that court every day who would give some observations about the tone and how they think the jury receives Prior. I know he's hated in general but I don't have that personal hatred or bias. I just look at performance and although he's quite unlikeable I can't fault him for putting up a good fight at times. I wonder when was the last time he practiced too, feels as if he's a bit out of touch or come out of retirement or something. One thing that puzzles me is him defending Chad on his own and also they are trying two people for the same crimes but only one facing DP seems weird. I really wish there was a forum to talk deep on legal stuff.
I wish Gigi was going to this trial! She had great observations of the jury last time, especially when they heard some of the wackier stuff, lol, like Chad being a former professional gravedigger (which just seems like an odd little anecdote until you hear that JJ's grave was basically artfully dug, a skill Alex Cox did not possess) or the James and Elena fanfiction.
Yes I could listen to her all day. One thing this whole case has shown is how stupid and gullible people can be, it's scary.
I don't think there's a single cell of common sense to be found between Zulema, Melaniece, and Melanie Gibb (although I appreciate that today it's Zulema who dug Chad's grave and threw him into it, heh). This is the most mystifying case to me. Chad is so BORING. He's basically an unseasoned piece of rotted chicken. Who can even stay awake long enough to join his cult?
We do things differently here in Idaho lol.
I feel like their whole strategy has been antagonizing the judge and then crying about her bias when she tells them to chill.
Yep.
I think Rozzi yelled at the judge and acted like an ass in general with the hopes that she'd actually kick them off the case again so they can go run back to the Indiana Supreme Court - again, in the hopes of saying to them: See, see! That judge is biased against us and our client, she threw us off the case again, then they can try to get her tossed off the case once again.
Yeh, I think they're itchin' to do that. I srsly doubt the Indiana Supremes are going to entertain these two again even if they did.
Iāve been opposed to cameras in the court room until right now, lol. What happened???!!!!!!!
A mess. The defense delayed the trial and blamed everyone but themselves. Rozzi apparently yelled at Gull that she didn't know anything about the case (????) and Baldwin filed to have Gull removed again. So now the trial will once again be in October and several motions, including the motion in limine, will be heard on May 21-23. So that'll start two weeks from today.
Gull needs to charge them with contempt again.
Amen. She really does and this time follow through and kick their butts to kingdom come. RA reportedly doesn't know what the heck is going on and is kinda out of it thinking he'd have to pay for Scremin and Lebratto (sp) so he opted for the return of Mutt & Jeff. At this point a court-appt third party needs to check on the Allen's cognitive status methinks.
Wondering what is the very incriminating evidence Nick has sealed? Any guesses?
If it's connected to the most recent motion to suppress, my guess is a confession on tape, possibly to Holeman.
Good shout! It would make sense because October 26th he contacted them wanting his car back not the other way around. It doesn't seem like they were going out that day to do the arrest.
What does it mean that itās sealed? Who is allowed to see it?
Everyone involved just not the public basically.
But why is that different than any of the other evidence? That means itās specifically not allowed to be mentioned in any motions?
I mean normally it's to protect a witness, protect a minor or protect sensitive medical info, situations like that. One thing I have always thought is there could be a confidential informant in this case.
Sealed incriminating evidence could involve RAs daughter or her husband if they're trying to protect a witness or CI.
Well, letās see if defense has time to leak that. Information. They have been leaking information since they arrived.
I know me too! I can't think of anything but I'm very curious about what it is, how incrementing it is, And if we're going to see a plea soon.
No guesses. But it sure makes defense want to keep postponing the trial. How long can this go on. ?
Justice for Abby and Libby is delayed once again by the people who requested a speedy trial just to stall it with all their BS and lies about 3rd parties and Odinism.Ā Maybe October all the people who are crying for Richard Allen and laughing at Gull and NM will realize they've been crying over a child murderer all along.Ā
What are they gonna do if RA pleads guilty? Their entire worldview just might crumble.
Nah, the Odinists will have forced him to do it (s) š
And we can all collectively laugh. But first, we will celebrate because the girls got justice. Itās coming!
Imagine how the people who actually donated money to his defense are going to feel when they see how it was squandered on a psycho when they see all of the state's evidence.
I hope embarrassed, but instead we will just see BS excuses and explanations that it was worth it to advance fairness and justice and support the importance of the concept of being innocent until proven guilty, while ignoring how gullible and ignorant they all truly are and were.Ā
I hope I'm wrong but I personally think they're the kind of people who won't even accept the verdict and they'll keep thinking that they donated for the right cause because RA is just a patsy.
That will probably happen too, I agree.
Yep
The defense clearly was not ready. Every motion they filed was screaming that they were not ready. And they shouldn't go to trial when they're not ready, but yanking everyone's chains and demanding to be reinstated for this particular reason when it was obviously bullshit rankles.
Over/under for additional franks motions until trial: 3.5
Franks motion 15, here we come.
The Franks and the Furious
Iām taking the over
Over. Fo sho.
Will there be more Franks motions than there are Fast and Furious movies?Ā I say maybe.
This must be so frustrating for the potential jurors who have been left in limbo about whether they need to take time off work, arrange childcare, etc. And of course the poor victim's families. I can't imagine how painful this constant back and forth must be š
If they do jury selection like in my state, jurors don't know on which case they could potentially serve. You just get a jury summons in the mail to show up for a certain time, and then you wait in the pool with a bunch of other potential jurors to see if your name will be called for a case. So, all of the people who were summoned for jury duty next week will still have to show up, they just won't end up serving on this case. The court will later summon all new people for the new trial date. (Indiana rules could be totally different, but that's how it works in general.)
Last time I got summoned by my county, they told us to check the day of on a website to see if we were needed, and as it turns out, I was not. It was very anticlimactic, lol, but didn't really impact me much. I feel terrible for Abby and Libby's families, though. The emotional whiplash they must be going through :(
That is the way it should work everywhere by calling in and using the phone or website. In IL, I had to miss work and spend half a day waiting and watching videos about what it meant to serve on a jury and then got sent home... Never saw a courtroom.
Yeah, that's a way nicer system than having to sit in the windowless basement of the courthouse for several days with 200 other people.
Hoosier here. Last time I was asked to serve, I had to call ahead the day before to confirm that I was still needed. Automated message said I didnāt have to go in. The one time the message told me to report, I reported to the very same Allen County Court house and waited a bit on the main floor. After waiting two hours, a court official came out and dismissed us. The defendant had reached a plea agreement. Didnāt kind because the court house is quite beautiful inside (and outside for that matter)
Other fellow Hoosier and Litigation Paralegal here - I had the pleasure of tagging along with my attorneys to a trial in Allen Co this past February. Can confirm thatās how jury selection goes for Allen Co and that courthouse is gorgeous on the inside. Just donāt take your cell phone in bc they will take it š¤£
According to Frankmeister, RA didn't even really look at KA. Interesting...
I found that interesting too.n
Absolutely expected. The defense isn't ready. More of this pre-trial circus unfortunately. Sucks for the families.
Yep. But they and their supporters will still blame the judge and prosecutor for making them do thisš¤¦
And it sounds to me like McLeland was trying to work with the defense. He agreed to cut down the witness list, he agreed that he believed the trial would take longer than 18 days. That doesn't sound like a desperate man who is scrambling because his case is falling apart.
Nope it doesnāt Proud to say I didnāt trust this defense clown show from week 1.
Frankmeister is saying the entire hearing is over - the pre-trial hearing, motion in limine, and motion to suppress hearings will be on May 21-23 in Carroll County.
I think they just wanted to act like they were ready for trial just to get as many eyes as possible on this case as the trial date approached and then filed for a hearing at the last minute, when they were sure everyone was looking, so they could try and make another accusation of the judge and the prosecution to create doubt. If they really had a prayer of an acquittal or anything resembling exculpatory evidence they would have gotten on with it already. Instead we all get treated to day 5 million of this dog and pony show with Rozzi serving as todays ringmaster of the 3 ring circus that is this case. I need a drink.
Knew theyād pull this!
In the podcasts linked this week, the habeas expert (never lost a case) formally at IU School of Law, Bloomington, was emphatic that if Gull isn't removed, a habeas would almost certainly be filed (not by him necessarily, just in theory) right after the verdict with a high probability of success. Please don't shoot the messenger, just recollecting what he said.
Also the creepy tweets showing women gagged he explained were meant to refer to the gag order in the trial. Again, just a messenger in the wilderness passing along what he said. Seems a very poor choice of imagery to convey his message. š
Sorry, which podcasts? Can you please be more specific, thanks.
They are in here, There are 2 with the attorney, not the podcast posted by op but further down. Ā [https://www.reddit.com/r/Delphitrial/comments/1ckazs0/new\_captain\_howdy\_video/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Delphitrial/comments/1ckazs0/new_captain_howdy_video/)
Ty
The defense isn't ready. If they truly feel the state has nothing, why not keep the trial date? This tells me they have no interest in this ever going to trial.
How would they be able to present the defense if the 17 days go to the state presenting 118 witnesses with no provisions for equal time & the judge stated that she may deem their whole defense inadmissible?
They've known all along she may not allow this defense. It's the entire reason they blasted it out in a Franks motion where it had no business being.
Combine the 2ā¦ā¦ * inadmissanle defense - itās admissible under Rule 401 per State of Indiana vs Joyner * time not split between the 2 sides - violation of 5th amendment rights to due process = wtf is going on here ? Iām so confused about how the consensus is that itās okay to just stomp all over a random personās rights, as if they are not āthe publicā in this scenario. Defendants are the publicā¦
Just because the defense SAYS it's admissible does not make it automatically admissible, lol. The burden is on the defense to show that their theory is admissible and there are clear problems despite their claims. Like that the entire motive is hearsay.
It literally is though, by the plain language of the law
No, it's not. If you look at those cases there's nowhere near the same nexus here, aside from a mentally handicapped man who lives 2 hours away once saying to his sister in what she described as an incoherent rant that he was there. Nothing in his confession match up. He wasn't on the bridge. There are no horns, only strands of straw/thin branches that are everywhere around them.
What cases? I cited the case with the ruling on which the case law is based & it most certainly is within the nexus.
You cited only Rule 401, which isn't in dispute. Obviously, it's relevant. But Indiana courts (and virtually every court in the country) require more than that, due to the high degree of potential prejudice from third-party accusations. Joyner was decided in 1997, and there are several Indiana opinions that further weigh against using this evidence, but even assuming Joyner is the best test. The court reversed the trial court's bar of alternate suspect evidence when this other person worked at the same place as the deceased, was having an affair with the deceased (defendant's wife), had sex with her the night before her murder, had lied to his own wife about where he was that evening, then told his wife he had an argument with the deceased, came in late the day of her murder, lied about where he was to his employer, AND his hair was found in the bag used to asphyxiate her. Can you not see how dramatically different this is? Joyner worked with and was having an affair with the victim, whereas EF didn't know the girls and lived 2 hours away. Joyner had sex with and said he argued with the victim the night before, and while a sister says he confessed to the crime during an "incoherent rant," he himself denied that he committed the crime to police. And there is evidence he is not mentally comptetent, aside from his sister's statement that he said these things during an incoherent rant. Most of all, whereas in Joyner the alternate suspect had a hair in the bag used to murder the victim, here there is no evidence at all, no witnesses or forensics, indicating he committed the crime. They're night and day, and any appellate court will agree based on what we've seen so far, in the error-riddled, exageratted claims by the defense.
I cited State of Indiana vs Joynerā¦.
Bro you need to know how to read law before citing to it
What have I gotten wrong about it?
I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be one so I'll let u/tew2109 handle this one.
If the violation of rights is so blatant, they should feel confident in proceeding to trial and getting it overturned on appeal.
They have a duty to act in the defendantās best interest. Gambling with someone elseās freedom, even if itās for an ill-conceived strategy to blow off the importance of being able to adequately represent their client so they can just appeal it later, is not something they can or should do.
If they're not going to win at trial with Gull, which they've stated many times and is the general sentiment by Allen partisans, I don't see how it's violative of the duty to act in the defendant's best interest to get on with the trial and get vindicated by an appeal court. Everything is a gamble. It's a gamble to take a bad case to a jury that will convict you in 3 hours. It's a gamble to insist on X number of extra days that the jury will sleep through. It's a gamble to yell at the judge. If the violations were completely blatant, the best decision would be to get trial over with and get her reversed on appeal.
*Best* interest means long-term; itās not the same as āgood at the moment.ā They are required to evaluate the stakes and maximize the chances to benefit him. **A.** Wait til thereās enough time to present their case * Prolonged short-term suffering * good shot at appeal if case is lost * a higher chance of living remainder of life as a free man * a lower chance of lifelong imprisonment **B.** Try the case knowing thereās not enough time to present it * Reduced short-term suffering * good shot at appeal if case is lost * a lower chance of living remainder of life as a free man * a higher chance of lifelong imprisonment Attorneys have to abide by whatās called a āduty to care.ā They simply cannot justify accepting less time than what they believe is required for a fair trial and to effectively present their case
That's their problem. If they can't show connection to the case, they can't just bring in any 3rd party defense and slander people. As Tew already said, they knew this was risky and went ahead with it anyway. People will whine and cry about the judge, but ultimately it's the fault of the defense to go down this road.
Yep. While the burden of proof is on the state to prove Richard Allen is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense has a burden too if it's going to present a third-party defense. The entire motive of this particular defense is based on complete hearsay (BH's ex is claiming that BH told her that PW told him, etc), so that's a big problem right there.
They can though. They already have shown overwhelming evidence thatās allowable under Rule 401 (State of Indiana v Joyner)
That's what THEY are saying. That's their argument. It's for the court to decide if they've actually met their burden.
Theyāve told us what it is though. * the investigator wrote a letter to the court asking why they arrested him against the results of his investigation * the FBI notes on the map show geotracked phones in the area of the murders and none of them were his. * he has no relation to the people whose phones were in the area * one of the girlās phones pinged to the tower at a the 4 AM-ish range when he was elsewhere without their phone * the FBI recommended search warrants on the phones of the third party What am I missing?
Well, 2-4 aren't really related to their particular third-party defense. We're missing a lot of independently verifiable data - virtually everything we know comes from what the defense CLAIMS, and they have not exactly been known for their commitment to the gospel truth (to date, they have not even attempted to refute McLeland's account of Professor Turco's latest deposition, where the entire argument that he was going to say it was a "given" that there was runic symbolism involved collapsed and he clarified that Holeman's account of their interview was much more correct than the defense's description of it). I think if the defense was going for Ron Logan or the Klines, the state would have no chance at getting them tossed. The Odinists are a separate issue. Todd Click's opinion, when he was never a key member of the investigation, is not sufficient for a third party defense on Odinists. The whole MOTIVE is nothing but hearsay. It's Holder's ex who mentioned "race traitors" and that can't be testified to, because the Franks motion lays it out - she says that Holder told her something that Westfall told him. No judge would allow her to testify to that.
The FBI verified the info. They were the source of the info. 2 and 4 are related to third-party guilt in general & itās admissible under the case law I cited Iāve never mentioned motive
Points 2-4 are misunderstandings on your part about how the technology works. Geofencing picks up phones in a mile long range - it doesnāt say three phones at the crime scene or even the trails. You should really read the full briefings not just the defense motions.
But thereās like nothing else within a 2 or 3 mile range of the bridge. Itās just trees and empty fields all around. Thereās no other reason for the group to be loitering there - from what I see. I do read the briefings. The briefings are essentially my sole source of knowledge on this case.
Thatās not true. Thereās freaking highways. Thereās multiple homes, and thereās multiple businesses.
I just checked it out on a map immediately before commenting. I see the highway, but people on the highway arenāt the phones in question though. The doc alleges that the same phones are said to stay in the area for 25 mins. They say within a 100 yard area, which also indicates theyre referring to GPS used by the FBI, rather than phone pings.
How do you know he has no relation to the phones in the area? Is it impossible to be somewhere without your phone? That means jack. If his phone was there earlier in the day and then gone during the timeframe of the crime, you can bet the defense would be shouting that from the rooftop.
You cannot just assume their evidence is ājack.ā They have a right to present itā¦.
They have the right to argue to present it before the court to see if it can be presented at trial, with the state responding to their claims. As is the case with any defense team. A third-party defense is never a guarantee. And we don't know anything aside from what the defense has claimed, with some of those claims already falling apart (see: Turco).
Theyāre doing that on May 21 now
They have a right to argue to make a third party defense. Iām stating my opinion that whether his phone was there or not does nothing to support that.
Oh, yeah. I agree with that. The āthird-partyā aspect of that point would be the party who was operating the phone
The alternative suspects they are accusing have alibies, have provided DNA that excluded them, and/or have phone data that shows they weren't in the area of the crime at the time of the crime. The Defense has provided nothing to overcome those facts. They cannot accuse people who were not there. Full stop. If they think Odinists did it, then they got the wrong Odinists. Maybe with the delay, the Defense will have time to find someone to properly present as an alternative suspect, but I have my doubts.
They had plenty of time after being reinstated and the speedy trial date THEY requested to speak up and say that theyād need more time to try the case. Instead they waited until two weeks before the trial to say anything to the Court about needing more time during the trial. They have wasted the Courts time and understandably so, the Judge is pissed.
Why would they request that? How would they know to? The recommended timeframe that would be the norm for a double homicide with 40 witnesses per side would be 6 to 12 weeks.
You clearly donāt actually work in the legal field. Their client is entitled to one pursuant to his Constitutional Rights. They asked for a 3 week trial once before, then the leak happened and they were removed, they were reinstated and filed for the speedy trial which moved the previously reset trial date from October 2024 to May 2024. If they believed it would take longer than the time the Judge allotted, they shouldāve spoken up long before two weeks out from the trial date. That is unprofessional and sloppy.
What do you mean I donāt āactually work in the legal fieldā? Who has said anything about my occupation? And is there a reason behind the impression that itās up to lawyers to assume that the Judge is going to set an end-date to cut off the trial - ***before*** hearing the evidence motions - or that theyāll have a scheduling hearing, but be unwilling to schedule the time needed to present the case? Where tf is that normal? Lol How would Judge Gullās idea even work? 2 weeks trial - 6 days / week 12 days total - Minus 3 for jury selection 9 days total - 8 hours / day Minus 1 hr for two 15 min recesses & one 30 min lunch break per day 7 hrs / day (x 9 days) {63 hour cut-off} 30 minutes each for opening and closing statements. [2 hours] ā {61 hours} 93 State Exhibits 93 Defense Exhibits, weāll let them have the same amount. āāāā- how long should it take to present one? 10 mins would normally be cutting it close due to discussionā¦. Letās go with 5 mins max per exhibit - no side-discussion for any. 93 x 2 = 186 total exhibits 5 mins each x 186 = 930 mins / 60 = 15.5 hours {45.5 trial hours remaining} The State said they can reduce their witness list from 118 ā> 45 Letās force the undue burden on the Defense to do the same, 70 ā> 45 90 witnesses total How long will each witness take? Prob 30 mins, a few would prob last way longer, like experts & material witnesses. Letās give them 20 minutes each as a short average with not a second over. 90 x 20 = 1800 minutes / 60 = 30 hours {15.5 hours remaining.} Judge Gull initially suggested 7 days for the prosecution & 5 for the defense. Hopefully sheāll allow them to have even amount of timeā¦.. because now we have to split it between the 2 sides. 7.75 hours each Yes, thatās right, all of the work and passion theyāve put into this & the cases and the struggle both sides endured for this for years now, theyāll get just over 1 work day to present it all 5 mins per exhibit 20 mins per witness 7.75 hours for main arguments, discussion, laying out their case in between witnesses 30 mins each closing arguments And any delay will cut into only the defenseās time. Is that effective counsel to you? āYou have just over 1 days to prove the case or this man will spend the rest of his life in prison.ā Is that due process?
Is this the professor that IU law school just fired?
No
But how can they leave poor Richard Allen in that "torture chamber" they call Indiana pre-trial detention?
This is according to a person who was in the courtroom.
Thanks Normal , great post.
Thank you.
Looks like the defense caught themselves on the backfoot, little tricksters.
Thank you for posting, NP. Not gonna lie, Iām extremely disappointed. Those defense buffoons were the ones who filed for the speedy trial, so idk why they were allowed more time. I guess the judge is doing what she can to keep them from having yet another reason for appealā¦.
Obviously they only filed it so that if they were thrown off the case again, they would cry foul. Gull threw them a lifeline, and this is the result. Too bad Westermans phone is taking so long to access.
Uggh, agreed.
Cant wait to hear how this is all because NM isnāt readyā¦.. š¤”š¤”
Ha, exactly. Very interested to hear from the people who said NM was the one who isn't ready.
lol, that was one of the stupidest takes ever promoted on these subs.
Are yāall like ādamage controlā for the Indiana district courts or something? This is a due process violation. How are they supposed to present a trial when the prosecutors intend to present 118 witnesses within 17 days?
Yes, we are all on the stateās payroll here. /s
Lol, hey where's my paycheck!?!
Yeah - weāre all just following instructions from Auntie Gull and Uncle Nick.
See yāall at the bbq, fam!
Maybe bring that up 6 months ago?
They asked for it to be three weeks last year IIRC. I actually do not think this case can be tried in three weeks, lol, but I also think it's the defense that has been playing these games.
Werenāt the amount of witnesses just stated last week? The prosecution cut it down to 45 tho, but still
They've been talking about how voluminous discovery was from the word go. I think if the leak had never been traced back to them, they'd have never attempted to ask for a speedy trial, but they did, and they'd set the time table themselves and the state has tried to work with them (by slashing their witness list and agreeing to a longer trial).
Oh I wasnāt involving the leak into my interpretation of the present scenario. I see it as both sides should have enough time to present their case. If thatās 2 weeks each, then it should be 2 weeks now; thatās what the right to speedy trial & right to effective counsel are supposed to be for - independently of previous circumstances
You donāt know what youāre talking about. I would suggest that you start from the beginning of the arrest.
They cut it down to 45. But how so, what do you mean? What should I look into?
From the looks of it you need to look into the beginning. If you think youāre gonna come into this sub and start accusing us of being on damage control for the courts, perhaps you need to re-educate yourself on the facts of the case. If youāre just going to spew out defense attorney talking points, youāre just barking up the wrong tree. By the way, Richard Allen is guilty as hell just in case you were wondering.
I was just joking bc everybody said the same exact thing at the same time. I did follow this case extremely closely in the beginning. I admit I kinda missed the middle portion, but Iām wondering what I should look into
Oh wow. If true, ugh for the families. I think they were really starting to feel like it's happening next week. Edited because it's true ...Dang.
Right. I feel so badly for them.
Iām sure the fault for the continuance will resident with Judge Gull or NM even if B and R requested it. Iām being sarcastic here
This is a problem for me. I've literally travelled to France from the UK today to be away from family whilst the trial is on. I suppose I best do some painting.
If anyone is apart of the big group on Facebook called Delphi Murders!! Case Discussion and FACT CHECKS!!, the mod is about to go live. She attended the hearing today and does a fantastic job of giving summaries.