LIBBY GERMAN & ABBY WILLIAMS: Indiana vs. Richard Allen for 2017 murder of two Delphi girls *TRIAL IN PROGRESS*

On February 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail Williams and Liberty German were discovered near the Monon High Bridge Trail, which is part of the Delphi Historic Trails in Delphi, Indiana, United States, after the young girls had disappeared from the same trail the previous day. The murders have received significant media coverage because a photo and audio recording of an individual believed to be the girls' murderer was found on German's smartphone. Despite the audio and video recordings of the suspect that have been circulated and the more than 26,000 tips that police have received, no arrest in the case has been made.[1][2][3]



Police have not publicly stated nor released details of how the girls were murdered.[6] As early as February 15, 2017, Indiana State Police began circulating a still image of an individual reportedly seen on the Monon High Bridge Trail near where the two friends were slain; the grainy photograph appearing to capture a Caucasian male, with hands in pockets, walking on the rail bridge, head down, toward the girls.[4] A few days later, the person in the photograph was named the prime suspect in the double-homicide.[5]

On February 22, law enforcement released an audio recording where the voice of the assailant,[7] though in some degree muffled, is heard to say, "Down the hill." It was at this news conference that officials credited the source of the audio and imagery to German's smartphone, and, further, regarded her as a hero for having had the uncanny foresight and fortitude to record the exchange in secret. Police indicated that additional evidence from the phone had been secured, but that they did not release it so as not to "compromise any future trial." By this time, the reward offered in the case was set at $41,000.[5]

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On Feb 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail Williams & Liberty German were discovered in Delphi, #INDIANA. The suspect in their deaths is awaiting trial.

On February 22, law enforcement released an audio recording where the voice of the assailant, though in some degree muffled, is heard to say, "Down the hill." Even with a lot of media coverage, their murders remain unsolved.

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[Tresir]

My God, why did I read that. I almost quit many times and when I found myself in some wandering thing about geofencing where Baldwin actually ran out of letters in the alphabet I had to wonder what the HE77 kind of law school this man attended. It started my day off wrong and irritated me to no end and it is laughable Gull would draft or sign anything that is all over the place, irrelevant, the length again of Gone With the Wind and rambling. I won't even start on its failures and lies and how they are bringing in and tying things that don't belong in it. Repetitive on top of it with things like the prrosector requesting they be kicked off the case to continually drill that in just as one example. They whine about no time after getting a lot of discovery and then being kicked off the case and so no time and no access then and now they are under time constraints but they demanded speedy trial. I could go on and on but it's not worth it because the entire thing is ridiculous yet again. If I had a highlighter there may have been two possibly relevant things in that whole document and certainly nothing to grant a Frank's hearing.

I mean this without sarcasm and with true feeling, Baldwin needs to go back and take the class on drafting legal documents with brevity when possible, intent, facts and that are solidly written and not all over the place. If you run out of letters in the alpabet you've went on too long times ten and that's just ONE PART.

To be fair maybe he has to go on and on as there just isn't enough that is factually relevant but even if there was I believe he'd go on like this. For all his talk of no time, he spends hours on a mess like this?!

I fully see where RA could have an ineffective counsel claim however he now intentionally and fully informed picked these attorneys.

Gull would never write anything like that and his buffoon assumption that she would or that this is something a judge would ever write or sign is , I don't even know what to call it... This man has something wrong with him. Ii'm serious. No good attorney would write something like this.

I won't even touch on being helpful and nice enough to write a rambling ridiculous order for the judge so she doesn't have to ferret out the facts, do the work and write her own order.

I don't think anything is going to get me to read another thing of theirs ever. I'll stick with Tom, poor him having to read all of them for the rest of us. He truly saves my sanity when having read this I know what he must be going through and I couldn't do any more of them.

On top of it I don't know if it was the program it opened in, my computer or they simply also use something and fail to number their pages but there were no page numbers that I could see so I never had any idea how long it was or if I was almost through it when I almost stopped many times as it was never-never never-never neverending ending ending ending. Miimicking Baldwin's repetitiveness and neverending style.

Maybe I could have turned page numbering on I have no idea but all I know is it didn't open with or have any. I started it last night and gave up and finished the morning and I still don't know why. What a way to start a work day and with no coffee having hit yet.

You know, they know what a court of appeals is for. Personally I think it's time they start preparing for trial that they asked be speedy. If he has time to sit down for hours and try to now incorporate geofencing into the Frank's motion which still is off another tangent in this document all together and sideways, then they must be fully prepped for trial. If any attorney who has the legal document writing down pat went in this and took out all that should be taken out, there'd be little left.

This attorney would overflood and try the patience of ANY judge past sanity. They did me just with this single document. It would make it seem they have all the time in the world but intend to leave the judge and opposing counsel with none just to read through and try to even make any sensible order of their points or how they relate if by the time one is done reading you can even go back and order such a jumble or have the wherewithal to do so.

I'm not being intentionally over the top. This is what I see and I mean every word of it without sarcasm for the most part. If he intends to continue in his profession he absolutely needs to do a class on this or do one over. In listening to Tom cover the transcript or was it what was in a filing, I forget, but they wandered similar in a recent hearing, I think the contempt one or motion to dismiss, I forget but they went way off point just as their filings do. If left unchecked a trial would last ten years and I mean JUST the trial itself. Jurors would die and turn gray while in their jury seats. Sarcasm is intended there but the point is a true one. They don't know how to be succinct and to the point. Nor do I, but I am NOT an attorney. For the very fact I can be the same way with writing when I am overloaded with too many thoughts, I can see it in him clearly.

One of my daughters tried to help me once and show me what they both learned in college on how to write something short, to the point and impactful, starting with like three bullet points or some such. It was simple and effective but didn't work for me. With our family's VIS, she wrote a beautiful short saying a ton in one page statement I could never match. So did a few others. Mine was long and rambling wanting to get every point in. I tried and made myself physically sick seriously for weeks ahead of sentencing. I felt unready when it came and couldn't fix it fully and was highly stressed when my turn. There's a lot more to it than that but I'm just saying Baldwin has a problem that I recognize.

I could be an attorney for every reason in the world and pass all the courses and pass the bar had I wanted to or tried I am sure just like any of the all of us intelligent people here. But that trait and problem would fail me. I'd never be able to e concise and stick to the point in the courtroom talking nor in a filing. Impact would be lost as would the point, jurors and judge and opposing counsel would be frustrated and would lose patience or quit paying attention, etc.

That's these two attorneys and It is certainly Baldwin.

However, it remains that he's just trying to make something where there is noting perhaps and that's when you create a blizzard of sh*t to sift through when there's no meat.

I don't know but I've wasted now a couple of hours on this of my short hours before a long work day and so i'm more irritated with him than ever lol.

But I did read it. And regret every moment wasted.

If you run out of letters of the alphabet you can be sure you have gone on too long but then you just start again with
Aa
Ab
Ac
.
.
Az
Ba
Bb
Bc
.
.
Bz
Ca
Cb
Cc
etc up to Zz

I love your analysis of it though with the vision of the jury growing old and grey as they listen or read it.

 

[Tresir]

I took a quick look and then when he started telling Gull what to write I just stopped as I knew Gull had dismissed it anyway. I agree that it was rambling rubbish.

 

[Imamazed]

I personally would prefer to read for myself and not depend on Tom or anyone to tell me what something says but that's me. Its hard to read sometimes but I still would prefer reading it for myself.

 

[GrandmaBear]

If you run out of letters of the alphabet you can be sure you have gone on too long but then you just start again with
Aa
Ab
Ac
.
.
Az
Ba
Bb
Bc
.
.
Bz
Ca
Cb
Cc
etc up to Zz

I love your analysis of it though with the vision of the jury growing old and grey as they listen or read it.

He ended with an aa LOL. Couldn't cut out I guess one point if you can callt hem that to make Z . Had to laugh at just one gone beyond, coudln't help it.

I think I've said years ago I worked for attorneys, two different firms for some years and I've never seen anything like their filings. I also used to read all filings in cases I followed as I had time and never have I seen such. And it isn't even just the length and the rambling, it is the totally unrelated things they put in and go off in a new direction/tangent with. Now pro SE stuff, that's different, people dont' know how to represent themselves and tend to put things in and judges don't like pro se defendants much just because they don't know the law and how to represent themselves but I can tell you there is no judge that would like this flooding their desks in piles on end and coming from two supposed professionals. Gull is not unique in that, I don't think any judge would be amused by it or happy with it. And I'm sure she's got a full docket I wouldn't doubt, of other cases as well.

Jmo and hey, no one can say I didn't read it. I tried. I did. And I'm not doing it again. Lol.

 

[GrandmaBear]

If you run out of letters of the alphabet you can be sure you have gone on too long but then you just start again with
Aa
Ab
Ac
.
.
Az
Ba
Bb
Bc
.
.
Bz
Ca
Cb
Cc
etc up to Zz

I love your analysis of it though with the vision of the jury growing old and grey as they listen or read it.

As far as the growing old and gray, I felt it happening to me by the end of reading one document LOL. Older and grayer maybe I should say lol. It was a bad start to my morning and a complete waste of most of my few hours I try to give myself before work. AND I had started it LAST NIGHT.

 

[Tresir]

I personally would prefer to read for myself and not depend on Tom or anyone to tell me what something says but that's me. Its hard to read sometimes but I still would prefer reading it for myself.

I do too but sometimes you can tell the way a large document is heading and if you know upfront it has been dismissed it is easy to see why.

 

[Tresir]

I decided to look up the death of Officer Ferency and here is a report of the incident.

'You'll never meet a finer person': Terre Haute mourning loss of veteran detective

Detective Greg Ferency was a respected member of the Terre Haute Police Department his colleagues said Thursday.

www.indystar.com

 

[GrandmaBear]

I personally would prefer to read for myself and not depend on Tom or anyone to tell me what something says but that's me. Its hard to read sometimes but I still would prefer reading it for myself.

I'm sorry we don't agree on this one and it won't happen on every one I'm sure. It shows that there are reasons and differing views in cases and oftentimes all agree as well.

I don't have time to read every document and this one and I'm sorry everything they've filed and I was I think the first to know of the Frank's memo and share the shocking O claim and read a fair amount of it when every single one of us was flabbergasted regardless of what side or way we were leaning and some even went what the heck is the defense doing, just as they did over the confessions at first... Even changed opinion for a moment.

I'm also sorry if my insulting the defense attys. upsets. It is what I see. If I recall you are the same one who stuck up for Gull and her long good reputation.

I used to read all docs in cases I followed and one would have to go back but many a time I may have been one of the only or few who shared what I read and key points and facts for others who couldn't.

These days I can't and I'm sorry but wouldn't with this defense again and I watch Tom just as I tried to share when I might be the only one who read the whole documents for someone to trust or at least learn what I saw in them or what they said.

I read the ENTIRE Morphew probable cause affidavit and I don't think and am pretty sure most hadn't at the time it was finally released. I read and watched almost every Daybell document, interview at every police department in every case etc.

Again I'm sorry if what I say upsets and maybe it doesn't, I don't know but if you are reading them all, I haven't seen you share your take. They had a few valid points or tried to In the first few pages. I gave it a chance. And I did read it. Every single word and last page of it.

it is definitely a case that has opinions and differences inflamed or people buying in or not and so on. And so it isn't hard to understand the same is going on here and the very intent they have has worked that way. Imo.

Anyhow, I wasn't going to respond to your comment so as to show I certainly with my opinion am not intending it at anyone or wanting to argue so I was going to scroll and roll but want you to know it is just truly what I see and where I am.

There is a LOT on the LE side I'm not real tickled about. I'll be honest. And I've weighed it. The O thing I don't give a lot of weight to based on ALL but the Doolin thing with RA interview? Yeah, that was a big loss and not following up way back when.

You know what I noticed in the rambling filing about the O thing was how they kept things from the theory or like their investigation found that Os were responsible and they talked like this was what their investigation found ASIDE from ever seeing Click etc. with some O thing and it was so much b.s. They didn't find this theory on their own they pulled it from reading this in the discovery. If you read it, you picked up on that repeatedly. They didn't find this out or come up with this theory through their own investigation. That is b.s. And not a thing they did from it has put one there, changed an alibi or shown they investigated further.

Anyhow, I just want to say I'm sorry we don't agree it seems and who knows who is right, I sure don't. And

This case not only here is causing a lot between people and I think that was the entire intent. With that, the defense has had their effect. IMHO.

And whether any of us are right or wrong or we ever have it proven satisfactorily to support a one of us who knows if we will ever get that. We may which is why I wait for trial now. And I'm fine with being wrong iif justice results. And that is shown.

Look what this is doing to people. I can't imagine the families with this circus. They have dead children.

Maybe that does play into my lack of amusement with being less than professional. But I guess they have a job to do and that is to save Allen. I truly haven't seen that from the beginnng but that's my opinion.

 

[Tresir]

I'm sorry we don't agree on this one and it won't happen on every one I'm sure. It shows that there are reasons and differing views in cases and oftentimes all agree as well.

I don't have time to read every document and this one and I'm sorry everything they've filed and I was I think the first to know of the Frank's memo and share the shocking O claim and read a fair amount of it when every single one of us was flabbergasted regardless of what side or way we were leaning and some even went what the heck is the defense doing, just as they did over the confessions at first... Even changed opinion for a moment.

I'm also sorry if my insulting the defense attys. upsets. It is what I see. If I recall you are the same one who stuck up for Gull and her long good reputation.

I used to read all docs in cases I followed and one would have to go back but many a time I may have been one of the only or few who shared what I read and key points and facts for others who couldn't.

These days I can't and I'm sorry but wouldn't with this defense again and I watch Tom just as I tried to share when I might be the only one who read the whole documents for someone to trust or at least learn what I saw in them or what they said.

I read the ENTIRE Morphew probable cause affidavit and I don't think and am pretty sure most hadn't at the time it was finally released. I read and watched almost every Daybell document, interview at every police department in every case etc.

Again I'm sorry if what I say upsets and maybe it doesn't, I don't know but if you are reading them all, I haven't seen you share your take. They had a few valid points or tried to In the first few pages. I gave it a chance. And I did read it. Every single word and last page of it.

it is definitely a case that has opinions and differences inflamed or people buying in or not and so on. And so it isn't hard to understand the same is going on here and the very intent they have has worked that way. Imo.

Anyhow, I wasn't going to respond to your comment so as to show I certainly with my opinion am not intending it at anyone or wanting to argue so I was going to scroll and roll but want you to know it is just truly what I see and where I am.

There is a LOT on the LE side I'm not real tickled about. I'll be honest. And I've weighed it. The O thing I don't give a lot of weight to based on ALL but the Doolin thing with RA interview? Yeah, that was a big loss and not following up way back when.

You know what I noticed in the rambling filing about the O thing was how they kept things from the theory or like their investigation found that Os were responsible and they talked like this was what their investigation found ASIDE from ever seeing Click etc. with some O thing and it was so much b.s. They didn't find this theory on their own they pulled it from reading this in the discovery. If you read it, you picked up on that repeatedly. They didn't find this out or come up with this theory through their own investigation. That is b.s. And not a thing they did from it has put one there, changed an alibi or shown they investigated further.

Anyhow, I just want to say I'm sorry we don't agree it seems and who knows who is right, I sure don't. And

This case not only here is causing a lot between people and I think that was the entire intent. With that, the defense has had their effect. IMHO.

And whether any of us are right or wrong or we ever have it proven satisfactorily to support a one of us who knows if we will ever get that. We may which is why I wait for trial now. And I'm fine with being wrong iif justice results. And that is shown.

Look what this is doing to people. I can't imagine the families with this circus. They have dead children.

Maybe that does play into my lack of amusement with being less than professional. But I guess they have a job to do and that is to save Allen. I truly haven't seen that from the beginnng but that's my opinion.

I have had a go at reading three of their loooonnnnggg documents now and find their writing style amateurish, unnecessarily padded out with irrelevancies and not endearing to any time challenged judges and attorneys, who have to read it and respond. Hopefully @Imamazed will share their thoughts on it with us, when they have finished reading it next week. Maybe @Olenna could comment on it too so we can judge if our thoughts and comments are fair. Others comments welcome too of course.

It makes me wonder, do judges have assistants and clerks whose job it is to read this stuff and give a precis and recommendations to them?

If R&B want this speedy trial, they should start by cutting the length of their documents by at least 80% IMO.

Also, I just can't help wondering if a certain person who couldn't pass the bar is actually helping or even writing this sh*t still.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

From the filing. (I'm bolding important parts)

The Court, having watched the 2017 videotaped interview of Sarah Carbaugh, finds that the defense is correct in claiming that in 2017 Sarah Carbaugh never said “bloody” when describing the clothing of the man she observed on the road. The Court also finds the defense was correct in stating that in 2017 Sarah Carbaugh never said the man she observed was wearing a blue jacket. In fact, Carbaugh described the color of the jacket he was wearing as tan. The Court finds, therefore, that Tony Liggett provided false information in his search warrant affidavit and this false information materially affected the timeline the State of Indiana advanced in its search warrant affidavit.

Additionally, the Court having watched Betsy Blair’s videotaped statement and having reviewed other evidence provided by the defense finds that Betsy Blair described the man that she observed on the bridge as being in his 20’s and having brown poofy hair. This description does not depict the way that the defendant, Richard Allen, looked in 2017 according to his age and according to how his wife described how he has always worn his hair (very short, almost shaved). Furthermore,

the Court finds that Betsy Blair described a vehicle that was NOT black and furthermore resembled a 1965 Mercury with sharp angles. The Court finds that Richard Allen’s Ford Focus was black and did not resemble a 1965 Ford Focus. The Court further finds these omitted facts were central facts necessary for establishing law enforcement’s timeline of Richard Allen’s involvement in the crime.
The Court finds further that should Judge Diener have known those false and omitted facts that he would have refused to sign the search warrant as they are the types of facts that a judge would want to know before signing the search warrant. (Gerth v. State, 51 NE3rd 368, 375 (Ind.Ct.App.2016)(quoting Wilson v. Russo, 212 F3rd 781, 788 (3rdCir. 2000) Also, State v. Vance, 119 NE3ed 626, 632 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) as those facts materially affect the timeline in such a way as to show that Richard Allen was not on the bridge nor was his car parked at the CPS lot and was therefore not the man that committed the murders.
However, law enforcement providing false information or omitting crucial information is not enough to require a Franks hearing. The next step is for this Court to determine whether Liggett made these false statements and omissions intentionally and/or with reckless disregard of the truth

However, in this case, the defense has provided evidence by way of police reports, emails, photographs, videos and audios that the defense claims show multiple occasions in which law enforcement provided false information in 2023 and/or tried to conceal evidence in 2023. Just a few of those examples include the following:

The defense provided an August 10, 2023, deposition of Jerry Holeman in which Holeman claimed that a Purdue professor stated that “it was not Odinism or any type of cult worshiping that would have conducted the crime.” (Holeman’s 8/10/2023 depo. p. 63, lines 15-25). However, the defense has since provided evidence that Jeffrey Turco never made such a statement. In fact, when asked at his March 21, 2024 deposition if he (Turco) ever uttered the words to the police that based upon his (Turco’s) findings “the sticks were not Odinism or any type of cult worshiping”, Purdue Professor Jeffrey Turco stated the following under oath: “That was not a hypothesis that I was asked to weigh in on in 2017 and certainly would have declined to do so.” (Turco 3/21/24 depo, page 79, lines 18-25). When comparing Holeman’s deposition with Turco’s deposition, at best Holeman did not provide accurate testimony. At worst Holeman lied under oath.


In his deposition, Holeman explained that based upon the Purdue professor’s statement that those involved in Odinism were not involved in the crime and therefore his investigation into Odinists was essentially abandoned. Holeman’s statement has been proven to be false in that the Purdue professor never claimed that “it was not Odinism or any type of cult worshipping that would have conducted the crime”. Holeman’s inaccurate deposition testimony is troubling to the Court.

Furthermore, the defense claims that for several weeks following Holeman’s August 10, 2023, deposition that it (the defense) had been requesting the identity of the Purdue Professor whose findings, as mentioned by Holeman and Liggett, essentially redirected the investigation

away from Odinism. The defense wanted to conduct a deposition of the Purdue Professor to confirm the accuracy of the claims made by Holeman and Liggett of the Purdue Professor’s conclusions that Odinists were not involved in the murders. The defense made multiple inquiries to McLeland over the course of August and early September as to whether the Purdue Professor had been identified. Each time McLeland said that the Purdue Professor had not yet been identified.

The defense has since provided an email to the Court that prosecutor McLeland sent to the defense on September 6, 2023, in which he (McLeland) claimed: “As stated before we are trying to identify the Purdue Professor, but no luck yet. Detective Holeman has reached out to the FBI and Purdue and has not gotten a response yet. We will continue our endeavors, but we may not be able to identify him/her.” However, a September 22, 2023, report drafted by Jerry Holeman and provided to the defense in February 2024 tells a different story and contradicts McLeland’s words in that September 6, 2023, email.

To be continued on the next post:

 

[Cousin Dupree]

In his September 22, 2023, report, Holeman admitted that the Purdue Police had informed him (Holeman) that the Purdue Professor’s name might be Turco. Holeman knew this information as early as August 12, 2023, and no later than August 14, 2023. Furthermore, in Holeman’s 9/22/23 report he says the following: “I notified Prosecutor McLeland that I possibly had identified the Purdue Professor. He (McLeland) requested that I meet with the professor and verify that he was the one that provided the report.” This conversation between Holeman and McLeland occurred (according to Holeman’s report) sometime on or before August 14, 2023.

Therefore, McLeland knew for at least 23 days that Holeman had possibly identified the Purdue professor as Turco, yet despite having this knowledge McLeland not only told the defense team that Holeman had no luck in identifying the Purdue professor, inexplicably McLeland claimed to the defense that “we may not be able to identify him/her.” A “few days” after August 14, 2023, law enforcement received Turco’s 2017 report. In the first paragraph of said report Turco wrote the following “the argument that these markings [the sticks] constituted an inscription inspired by Norse runes (or modern recreation thereof) is quite plausible”, contradicting Holeman’s sworn testimony. However, said report was not received until the defense made a request to McLeland on October 4, 2023 around 45 days after law enforcement claimed to have located the report.

Clearly, by September 6, 2023, McLeland had been fully aware for over 3 weeks that Holeman had learned the possible identity of the Purdue Professor (Jeffrey Turco) and by then had even received the unsigned 2017 report of that professor. Yet McLeland claimed to the defense that the FBI and Purdue Police had not yet responded to Holeman when clearly both had, even providing the name Turco to Holeman. In spite of this knowledge, McLeland then refused to alert the defense of the name ‘Turco’, nor provided the defense with Turco’s 2017 report, but instead told the defense that “we may not be able to identity him/her”

McLeland, the elected prosecutor, was not forthright with the defense when he (McLeland) told the defense that the prosecution was not aware of the identity of the Purdue Professor. The Court also notes that Nick McLeland was a signatory on the search warrant affidavit, approving the language contained in the search warrant affidavit. The Court also concludes that if Nick McLeland was willing to attempt to conceal the identity of the Purdue professor in the September 6, 2023 email, that it is logical to conclude that as a signatory approving the language contained in the search warrant affidavit, McLeland might also be willing to fabricate or conceal other evidence in that affidavit.

Since the people convinced of his guilt probably haven't read any of this I suggest you continue by reading the whole thing. There is lying under oath, misconstruing what people said under oath. I've already provided a lot of stuff that proves that. There's a lot more. If you don't find this hinky, I don't understand why.

 

[Imamazed]

Anyhow, I just want to say I'm sorry we don't agree it seems and who knows who is right, I sure don't. And

I don't think we disagree much on this case. I just want to make sure I think he got a fair case. I'm a little concerned about that.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I have had a go at reading three of their loooonnnnggg documents now and find their writing style amateurish, unnecessarily padded out with irrelevancies and not endearing to any time challenged judges and attorneys, who have to read it and respond. Hopefully @Imamazed will share their thoughts on it with us, when they have finished reading it next week. Maybe @Olenna could comment on it too so we can judge if our thoughts and comments are fair. Others comments welcome too of course.

It makes me wonder, do judges have assistants and clerks whose job it is to read this stuff and give a precis and recommendations to them?

If R&B want this speedy trial, they should start by cutting the length of their documents by at least 80% IMO.

Also, I just can't help wondering if a certain person who couldn't pass the bar is actually helping or even writing this sh*t still.

I can only agree with every word you said here and well said by the way.

Kudos to those that read every single one Iike those here and Tom, I think they are owed for doing so, as is Gull and the prosecution and everyone else who does. The last I saw here nothing was shared or is of prosecution filings or even all of defense's other than a statement saying ignore all the rest, this is the one that matters most by the defense or maybe that was a transcript, can't quite recall.

I dont' see how anyone can deny they are unprofessional and unnecessarily full of irrelevancies and the public not only the parties can see this and understand that.

Never have I seen any indication that a judge has anyone who can ingest such for them and the not have to read every single document themselves and be up to speed on it. And I can only agree that on one hand they go on about lack of time but then sit down to write a novel with which many a chapter belongs in another book or maybe many pages belong in another chapter or whatever and then would appear to have all the time in the world.

You know it's funny, I'm not much different in many cases. I absolutely detest the defense attorneys in Morphew. I am developing an extreme dislike for the one in Kohberger. I can' stand Murdaugh's attorneys. I don't like Prior in Daybell but I will give credit where credit is due and even though the bit of jury selection I watched I am already sick of him I think he IS going to not be one to lie down at trial and will present a case and some strong cross examination. Just some examples but only in this one does anyone get upset and seem to get personally upset. However, maybe it is the only one they follow or they care more about it or personally know or care about the attorneys or something, I don't know but I find it odd/surprising and I sure don't see it otherwise or in other cases and never have.

I was serious when I said Baldwin needs to take a class on this IF it isn't the likes of MW drafting such. There is ample reason to wonder that.

I don't know what classes an attorney has to take in law school but I'd imagine there is one on writing succinct, relevant and impactful motions, briefs and so on. However, maybe defense lawyer classes or finishing differs and they are just taught to flood the judge and other side with everythingi they can. That's actually not hard to believe but lack of ability to write anything without destroying their own chance to make a direct and important point is.

We know MW did not pass the bar but I'm sorry Baldwin failed this class or they let him slide with a D or some such. There has to be a class on such and I'd think it would be a required class. No attorney can be effective without being able to draft the very documents they may need in every single case. Have they filed a single SHORT one ever? You know a simple motion to appear or anything?

We are just people, not lawyers. What seriously do families who care that their husband or son's freedom is at stake think when they look at the drafted documents of these two or three or whatever it is? WE SEE it. Others must. Family must. These are attorneys, professionals, representing someone whose freedom for life is on the line.

I can't make it any more clear than I have and you just put it quite well, that I truly mean and see every single thing I say. I get sarcastic at times or joking as they are just so bad at this. But again it is not like I don't have some opinions on defense attorneys in other cases but never with drafting documents lol. This is a first. And it is taken so very personally here.

I am also and have always been 100 percent serious that I am sorry for Allen, a rare thing with me, actually a NEVER thing, being stuck with these two.

And where is Rozzi actually and what is his part? It's always Baldwin's office and it's always Baldwin. It's like they keep him a bit cleaner. Did he help draft this? What is his part? It certainly isn't to review a final draft. Not that they can't parcel as they will.

I'm thankful that you see it all too. Everyone can have their opinion but I've never seen what I consider blinders out there so bad as in this case. I don't even mean in here. Or so easily running to the O thing and you name it.

Speaking of reading all, just staying up on all and watching the pattern and timing of all through this case tells its own story with the defense. And while I may not read every doc, I stay up on ALL and ensure I do. I don't have a choice I don't have time for all docs in a normal case, I sure can't read all the docs filed by the defense or prosecution in this one. I never see anyone giving their take either on the prosecution filings.

Anyhow, I'm with you although I have no certainty it will go off but I want this trial taking place and this over with.

I'd add one last thing and that is that it is no one's job and certainly not the prosecution's to provide the defense an interpreter or do their job for them.

I tend to dislike a fair number of defense attorneys no doubt but this is different. There's ample real reason here and not just that they defend a perp and sn*w their filings and information. I don't think these guys should be representing even a charged defendant for his or her own sake.

I also get to where this is by far not the only case there is. It apparently is the only one for some who appear never in another. Or at least never say a word in another. And this is a crime site is it not with a name pretty much showing such? I have a serious lack of time and am really in a crunch this morning. And some follow a handful but following only one I'm not sure I get. There is not a single other thread as active as this or even close. Why is that.

Anyhow, a moment for the girls and their families I am going to take right now. Before I turn my lights on and face a ten hour plus day.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I don't think we disagree much on this case. I just want to make sure I think he got a fair case. I'm a little concerned about that.

And I don't disagree on that. Like I said where you may or may not agree, I am sorry for him for the attys he has. And yes, there are other things I don't like but I have weighed them all. And he has chosen to go ahead with these attorneys. That may not be your concern or our concerns match but I just wanted you to know I certainly am not getting at your or anything other than voicing my opinion.

And Tom is pretty much a sane and even kind of fun place to take some respite from the intensity of this case here. Not that you have to. Lol.

Anyhow, glad you understand it's just all strong opinions one way or another. I wanted to make sure of that.

 

[GrandmaBear]

In his September 22, 2023, report, Holeman admitted that the Purdue Police had informed him (Holeman) that the Purdue Professor’s name might be Turco. Holeman knew this information as early as August 12, 2023, and no later than August 14, 2023. Furthermore, in Holeman’s 9/22/23 report he says the following: “I notified Prosecutor McLeland that I possibly had identified the Purdue Professor. He (McLeland) requested that I meet with the professor and verify that he was the one that provided the report.” This conversation between Holeman and McLeland occurred (according to Holeman’s report) sometime on or before August 14, 2023.

Therefore, McLeland knew for at least 23 days that Holeman had possibly identified the Purdue professor as Turco, yet despite having this knowledge McLeland not only told the defense team that Holeman had no luck in identifying the Purdue professor, inexplicably McLeland claimed to the defense that “we may not be able to identify him/her.” A “few days” after August 14, 2023, law enforcement received Turco’s 2017 report. In the first paragraph of said report Turco wrote the following “the argument that these markings [the sticks] constituted an inscription inspired by Norse runes (or modern recreation thereof) is quite plausible”, contradicting Holeman’s sworn testimony. However, said report was not received until the defense made a request to McLeland on October 4, 2023 around 45 days after law enforcement claimed to have located the report.

Clearly, by September 6, 2023, McLeland had been fully aware for over 3 weeks that Holeman had learned the possible identity of the Purdue Professor (Jeffrey Turco) and by then had even received the unsigned 2017 report of that professor. Yet McLeland claimed to the defense that the FBI and Purdue Police had not yet responded to Holeman when clearly both had, even providing the name Turco to Holeman. In spite of this knowledge, McLeland then refused to alert the defense of the name ‘Turco’, nor provided the defense with Turco’s 2017 report, but instead told the defense that “we may not be able to identity him/her”

McLeland, the elected prosecutor, was not forthright with the defense when he (McLeland) told the defense that the prosecution was not aware of the identity of the Purdue Professor. The Court also notes that Nick McLeland was a signatory on the search warrant affidavit, approving the language contained in the search warrant affidavit. The Court also concludes that if Nick McLeland was willing to attempt to conceal the identity of the Purdue professor in the September 6, 2023 email, that it is logical to conclude that as a signatory approving the language contained in the search warrant affidavit, McLeland might also be willing to fabricate or conceal other evidence in that affidavit.

Since the people convinced of his guilt probably haven't read any of this I suggest you continue by reading the whole thing. There is lying under oath, misconstruing what people said under oath. I've already provided a lot of stuff that proves that. There's a lot more. If you don't find this hinky, I don't understand why.

No time to invest reading your posts. Maybe later. Just in seeing them see a few things and all the bolding. I will say offer yourself to the defense if youi can pick out and highlight what mattered in their filing because they are incapable of it or any member of their team apparently. That's not sarcasm, I am serious. I saw in the first page or two where they might have a chance of making a good point, not that I am sure any would reach the heights of what is needed for a Franks hearing but a chance and then they lost it.

Again haven't and don't dare read your posts right now. But just in seeing the length they are long enough but maybe concise enough to at least make their pointsi of which I don't think they have enough but I will read later. Maybe. In a fair less than normal time crunch this morning. Hoping to catch up on a few other cases for a few minutes then am going to have to fly to get ready for work.

 

[RoundPeg]

I don't think we disagree much on this case. I just want to make sure I think he got a fair case. I'm a little concerned about that.

Same here. I'm a bit concerned about the expert witness issue. For instance, I would hope someone is on hand to discuss geofencing vs geolocating.

 

[Guess Who]

I've known of that for ages, haven't we all? Just like Murdaugh with opiods, or Hollywood celebs after a DUI or assault or domestic. It's a cover and an excuse if needed.

You can cite Grizz all you want who knew nothing of most any of these cases back in the day or even one or two years ago. Is every post now going to be according to Grizzly? No offense but she's no authority. Shows imho are to not cite someone who is not an authority as an authority but to mention info that comes out in them if true and ingest it oneself and put it in there along with other info or facts and see where it leads or leaves you. Imo Grizzly has lost her bearings or is showing her true ones now and on top of it trying to cover every single case instead of being on top of the ones her viewers first followed her for and due to who pays her and asks her to go off the others. Watch for that and you'll notice it.

She's written some books. My guess is you can buy them and maybe go spend your time reading them.

But back to the rehab. My opinion way back when I heard this was yes of course he did, he was absolutely panicked he was going to be arrested and caught. Too freaking bad he wasn't. And there was that incident where I can only guess they were cut a break when help was called for.

Yet isn't it interesting, he had to go for major checked in rehab but in later photos and such there he is drinking at the local bar in front of posters of BG with his wife. I guess it didn't work. The rehab I mean....

Plus, with HIPAA laws, no rehab place could either confirm or deny that he was even a patient there without a subpoena and even if that was done, WE wouldn't know the answer because of HIPAA laws until trial.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Plus, with HIPAA laws, no rehab place could either confirm or deny that he was even a patient there without a subpoena and every if that was done, WE wouldn't know the answer because of HIPAA laws until trial.

Definitely. It's anyone's guess what's true with that and even if true I don't see it as relevant or any excuse, I see it more as his way of getting out of Dodge when he was concerned in short order he'd be arrested if anything.

 

[Tresir]

Two officers disagreed that the Odinism thing had nothing to do with it. They're both dead. One was shot and killed. There are also FBI agents who believe this theory should be researched further.

So with your double negative you are saying 2 officers thought O had something to do with it. Was one of them Ferency? Who was the second one?

What are the agent names who believe further research is needed.

Just state what it is you are saying because it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Tresir]

In his September 22, 2023, report, Holeman admitted that the Purdue Police had informed him (Holeman) that the Purdue Professor’s name might be Turco. Holeman knew this information as early as August 12, 2023, and no later than August 14, 2023. Furthermore, in Holeman’s 9/22/23 report he says the following: “I notified Prosecutor McLeland that I possibly had identified the Purdue Professor. He (McLeland) requested that I meet with the professor and verify that he was the one that provided the report.” This conversation between Holeman and McLeland occurred (according to Holeman’s report) sometime on or before August 14, 2023.

Therefore, McLeland knew for at least 23 days that Holeman had possibly identified the Purdue professor as Turco, yet despite having this knowledge McLeland not only told the defense team that Holeman had no luck in identifying the Purdue professor, inexplicably McLeland claimed to the defense that “we may not be able to identify him/her.” A “few days” after August 14, 2023, law enforcement received Turco’s 2017 report. In the first paragraph of said report Turco wrote the following “the argument that these markings [the sticks] constituted an inscription inspired by Norse runes (or modern recreation thereof) is quite plausible”, contradicting Holeman’s sworn testimony. However, said report was not received until the defense made a request to McLeland on October 4, 2023 around 45 days after law enforcement claimed to have located the report.

Clearly, by September 6, 2023, McLeland had been fully aware for over 3 weeks that Holeman had learned the possible identity of the Purdue Professor (Jeffrey Turco) and by then had even received the unsigned 2017 report of that professor. Yet McLeland claimed to the defense that the FBI and Purdue Police had not yet responded to Holeman when clearly both had, even providing the name Turco to Holeman. In spite of this knowledge, McLeland then refused to alert the defense of the name ‘Turco’, nor provided the defense with Turco’s 2017 report, but instead told the defense that “we may not be able to identity him/her”

McLeland, the elected prosecutor, was not forthright with the defense when he (McLeland) told the defense that the prosecution was not aware of the identity of the Purdue Professor. The Court also notes that Nick McLeland was a signatory on the search warrant affidavit, approving the language contained in the search warrant affidavit. The Court also concludes that if Nick McLeland was willing to attempt to conceal the identity of the Purdue professor in the September 6, 2023 email, that it is logical to conclude that as a signatory approving the language contained in the search warrant affidavit, McLeland might also be willing to fabricate or conceal other evidence in that affidavit.

Since the people convinced of his guilt probably haven't read any of this I suggest you continue by reading the whole thing. There is lying under oath, misconstruing what people said under oath. I've already provided a lot of stuff that proves that. There's a lot more. If you don't find this hinky, I don't understand why.

Thanks for printing it all out. You do know that this isn't "The Court" saying these things don't you? It is the defence writing this out for the court to approve, and the court has dismissed it. Therefore so should we. It is null and void now. It isn't proof of anything. It would be like you or me drafting something that detailed what we thought happened and giving it to the judge to approve. Trials don't work like that. Evidence is brought forward at a trial, by the prosecution, which the defence need to disprove in court, so the jury can evaluate all the evidence.

Is Turco's report available to the public yet? I don't remember having seen it so far.

I have found this. 45 seconds and very interesting.