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

 

[Cousin Dupree]

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.

Read the report.

Double negative?

 

[Cousin Dupree]

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.

The defense did read professor Turco's statement, and it's different than what Liggett provided in the PCA. I don't hear anything from Turco himself on that recording. This can all be found by reading the whole thing.

Other things in there are that the witness who saw the car parked said it was a 60s Mercury and not black. This filing doesn't mention it, but Allen said he parked on the opposite side of the park. Yet another lie or "mistake" by the prosecution. If you read the whole thing with an open mind, you'll see how weak the prosecutions case is.

The PCA was a bunch of malarkey made up by the prosecution in order to secure a search warrant. The judge, most likely, wouldn't have approved it if he was given all the evidence and the truth.

The Odinism thing was dismissed out of hand because the cops were either afraid to go there, or were too lazy to mount a full investigation.

Tell me what you think when you've read the whole thing.

 

[Guess Who]

The defense did read professor Turco's statement, and it's different than what Liggett provided in the PCA. I don't hear anything from Turco himself on that recording. This can all be found by reading the whole thing.

Other things in there are that the witness who saw the car parked said it was a 60s Mercury and not black. This filing doesn't mention it, but Allen said he parked on the opposite side of the park. Yet another lie or "mistake" by the prosecution. If you read the whole thing with an open mind, you'll see how weak the prosecutions case is.

The PCA was a bunch of malarkey made up by the prosecution in order to secure a search warrant. The judge, most likely, wouldn't have approved it if he was given all the evidence and the truth.

The Odinism thing was dismissed out of hand because the cops were either afraid to go there, or were too lazy to mount a full investigation.

Tell me what you think when you've read the whole thing.

Or dismissed because it was a big nothing burger.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Or dismissed because it was a big nothing burger.

 

[Tresir]

Read the report.

Double negative?

I have already read it. Now I am asking you questions about it. As I said it is the D's version which the Court (Gull) has dismissed so it is meaningless.

The defense did read professor Turco's statement, and it's different than what Liggett provided in the PCA. I don't hear anything from Turco himself on that recording. This can all be found by reading the whole thing.

Other things in there are that the witness who saw the car parked said it was a 60s Mercury and not black. This filing doesn't mention it, but Allen said he parked on the opposite side of the park. Yet another lie or "mistake" by the prosecution. If you read the whole thing with an open mind, you'll see how weak the prosecutions case is.

The PCA was a bunch of malarkey made up by the prosecution in order to secure a search warrant. The judge, most likely, wouldn't have approved it if he was given all the evidence and the truth.

The Odinism thing was dismissed out of hand because the cops were either afraid to go there, or were too lazy to mount a full investigation.

Tell me what you think when you've read the whole thing.

I have read the whole thing and have told you what I think. Its all inadmissable basically as Gull has dismissed it.

Some comments however:-

Allen actually said he parked by the old Farm bureau which became the CPS building, which is now demolished.

Witnesses may disagree about timings etc but they have his vehicle on the Hoosier video and his admissions he was there so that's the bottom line.

You used a double negative in your sentence which changes its meaning, so it is not clear to me. (DISAGREED and NOTHING is the double negative)

"Two officers disagreed that the Odinism thing had nothing to do with it."

Disagreed that Odinism had nothing to do with it means "agreed Odinism had something to do with it" so is that what you mean? Did two officers agree O had something to do with it? If so, who were those two?

Have you seen Turco's report? If so, please provide a copy too.

Don't tell me to read it again. Maybe you should.

Thanks much.

 

[Tresir]

Or dismissed because it was a big nothing burger.

Yep I agree.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I have already read it. Now I am asking you questions about it. As I said it is the D's version which the Court (Gull) has dismissed so it is meaningless.

I have read the whole thing and have told you what I think. Its all inadmissable basically as Gull has dismissed it.

Some comments however:-

Allen actually said he parked by the old Farm bureau which became the CPS building, which is now demolished.

Witnesses may disagree about timings etc but they have his vehicle on the Hoosier video and his admissions he was there so that's the bottom line.

You used a double negative in your sentence which changes its meaning, so it is not clear to me. (DISAGREED and NOTHING is the double negative)

"Two officers disagreed that the Odinism thing had nothing to do with it."

Disagreed that Odinism had nothing to do with it means "agreed Odinism had something to do with it" so is that what you mean? Did two officers agree O had something to do with it? If so, who were those two?

Have you seen Turco's report? If so, please provide a copy too.

Don't tell me to read it again. Maybe you should.

Thanks much.

The bosses were dismissing Odinism. Two officers agreed, with each other, that Odinism had something to do with it. One is dead. I'm not sure of the names. @Tresir posted how one of them was killed. It has his name.

Turco's report is mentioned in the filing. It is also proven the prosecution was trying to keep his name away from the defense, why? They knew he thought differently then they were presenting.

The prosecution lied about several things to get the warrant. RA doesn't drive a 60s Mercury. The PCA added the word "bloody" to the witness' statement, as well as changing the color of the jacket from tan to blue in order to match BG. What about the changing of the witness' report about seeing a man in his twenties?

I have not seen, nor heard, any of the things they mention. However, it seems that both sides have the recordings. We'll see at trial which side is right.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Or dismissed because it was a big nothing burger.

Judge Gull is obviously doing everything she can to sabotage the defenses efforts. Everything pointing to RA's innocence is a nothing burger to her. She won't even provide funding for some of their efforts.

 

[Tresir]

The bosses were dismissing Odinism. Two officers agreed, with each other, that Odinism had something to do with it. One is dead. I'm not sure of the names. @Tresir posted how one of them was killed. It has his name.

Turco's report is mentioned in the filing. It is also proven the prosecution was trying to keep his name away from the defense, why? They knew he thought differently then they were presenting.

The prosecution lied about several things to get the warrant. RA doesn't drive a 60s Mercury. The PCA added the word "bloody" to the witness' statement, as well as changing the color of the jacket from tan to blue in order to match BG. What about the changing of the witness' report about seeing a man in his twenties?

I have not seen, nor heard, any of the things they mention. However, it seems that both sides have the recordings. We'll see at trial which side is right.

I know the names of the two officers killed but I was asking you. I am not aware that Ferency agreed with the O theory or that the other officer who died did either. How would Defence know this anyway, if the officers are dead.

Prosecution wasn't keeping the name from the defence. Prosecution asked Holemen to check the Professor's name with Purdue LE to be sure he was the right Professor and that confirmation report from Purdue LE had not yet come back.

Seeing a man in his twenties could mean a 29 year old and RA was fairly young looking in 2017. He later put on weight and grew his big long beard making himself look older and fatter.

Re the colour of the jacket tan or blue- a blue jacket covered in mud/blood could appear to be tan coloured. I also believe the witnesses were interviewed more than once so they could have added details to their testimony.

The most important fact about this is that Gull refused the motion so none of it can now be taken as evidence.

 

[Olenna]

Happy Solar Eclipse Eve.

4/7 Edited (thank u @Tresir for correcting motion name error)
Status notes:
These status notes are JMHO, based upon my own reading and interpretation of the docket. I have been able to read every docket entry and every filing and every exhibit and even the available 3/18 transcript ... (not on docket) .. at least once. (I think I've read them all, anyway!!) Corrections welcome!

- April 2nd - The Court has ruled on the March 18th Motion to Dismiss Hearing: Denied.

Upon closing that March 18th Motion to Dismiss Hearing, Gull directed that the Defense submit a Summary Memorandum, followed by a Prosecution Response to Memo - to be filed by week-apart deadlines following the March 18th hearing's afternoon session. (The afternoon's hearing session on 3/18 transcript - I have previously posted to this thread). Gull indicated at the 3/18 Motion to Dismiss Hearing that upon reviewing both the hearing, and these memo submissions, and exhibits, she would then take all under advisement in order to rule on this Motion to Dismiss, decision April 2nd.

- We still await the Court's Contempt hearing decision (from the March 18th morning session).

The P submitted a summary (and D answered) after the Contempt Hearing 3/18 as well; the Prosecution asked Gull for a non-specific "sanction" of her choosing, thereby dropping the original Contempt Motion ask for a 2nd removal of the D. It remains unclear (a technicality) as to what type of contempt the P understood they were bringing; the P asserts in their summary papers that the contempt was "unique" ... suggesting Gull can decide.

On this Contempt matter, any post-hearing memos have been filed and we're now about 10 days into a 30 day clock for the Court's ruling on that Contempt motion brought by the P.

- Additional discovery to be submitted by the P to the D has been listed (and requested) by the D - some of those requests for discovery remain outstanding. Several filings indicate that the D feels relevant discovery has not been shared with them. The same filings suggest the P is still "looking"/"searching"/"contacting" in its efforts to get outstanding discovery to the D.

- We await the Court's Decision on a 3rd Franks Hearing request from the Defense, filed 3/13/24. State has Responded, and D has Replied to State's Response. We should hear from the Court soon - whether a hearing will be granted or denied.

The defense is asking, based upon this third Franks notice as well as the other Franks notices, to set this matter for a Franks hearing to argue that all fruits of the search of Richard Allen's home be suppressed.

- One set of missing discovery includes crime scene "geotracking" discovery. The P has recently asserted (in their Response to the Defense's 3rd Franks Hearing Motion) that the "geotracking evidence" LE has collected is not useful to the D, and that b/c the D's are not geotracking experts they can't know if the geotracking report is useful, meaningful, exculpatory, or not. The D's Reply agrees that the D are not experts, so the D hired a geotracking expert to evaluate the P's geotracking discovery as provided, thus the D's further questions as to the investigation's geotracking expert reports on the P's geotracking.

- As to Health and Mental Health Records, RA and the D have released these to the P.

- There has recently been a Court decision not to penalize the Prosecutor for various missing, late and still outstanding discovery transfers to the Defense.

Additional discovery to be submitted by the P to the D has been listed (and formally requested) by the D - some of those requests for discovery remain outstanding. Several filings indicate that the D feels relevant discovery has not been shared with them. The same filings suggest the P is still "looking"/"searching"/"contacting" in its efforts to get outstanding discovery to the D.

IMO, it's reasonable (given past is prologue), to predict that Gull will (very shortly) deny the D's 3rd request for a Frank's Hearing.
IMO, Defense continues to make a deep appellate record via its pre-trial filings.

Ongoing: Discovery disclosure demands from the D upon the P, and Expert compensation requests from the D to the Court.
On deck: pre-trial motions/rules of evidence hearings
Rules of Evidence: I'm aware of no decisions from the Court to date as to evidence/experts/witnesses being ruled in or out for trial.

Please reference this case's docket, where filings, the Court's calendaring, and the Courts minute decisions are maintained for public access. The docket link has been posted in this thread. The 3/18 transcript is not on the docket but was previously attached in this thread.

MOO MOO

 

[Tresir]

Happy Solar Eclipse Eve.

Status notes:
These status notes are JMHO, based upon my own reading and interpretation of the docket. I have been able to read every docket entry and every filing and every exhibit and even the available 3/18 transcript ... (not on docket) .. at least once. (I think I've read them all, anyway!!)

- The Court has not yet ruled on the current Motion to Dismiss heard on March 18th.

Upon closing that March 18th Motion to Dismiss Hearing, Gull directed that the Defense submit a Summary Memorandum, followed by a Prosecution Response to Memo and a Defense Reply - to be filed by week-apart deadlines following the March 18th hearing's afternoon session. (This afternoon's hearing session on 3/18 transcript - I have previously posted to this thread).

Gull indicated at the 3/18 Motion to Dismiss Hearing that upon reviewing both the hearing, and these memo submissions, and exhibits, she would then take all under advisement in order to rule on this Motion to Dismiss. We await Gull's ruling.

- We also await the Court's Contempt hearing decision (from the March 18th morning session).

The P submitted a summary (and D answered) after the Contempt Hearing 3/18 as well; the Prosecution asked Gull for a non-specific "sanction" of her choosing, thereby dropping the original Contempt Motion ask for a 2nd removal of the D. It remains unclear (a technicality) as to what type of contempt the P understood they were bringing; the P asserts in their summary papers that the contempt was "unique" ... suggesting Gull can decide.

On this Contempt matter, any post-hearing memos have been filed and we're now about 10 days into a 30 day clock for the Court's ruling on that Contempt motion brought by the P.

- As to Health and Mental Health Records, RA and the D have released these to the P.

- There has recently been a Court decision not to penalize the Prosecutor for various missing, late and still outstanding discovery transfers to the Defense.

- Additional discovery to be submitted by the P to the D has been listed (and requested) by the D - some of those requests for discovery remain outstanding. Several filings indicate that the D feels relevant discovery has not been shared with them. The same filings suggest the P is still "looking"/"searching"/"contacting" in its efforts to get outstanding discovery to the D.

- One set of missing discovery includes crime scene "geotracking" discovery. The P has recently asserted (in their Response to the Defense Summary Memo for Motion to Dismiss) that the "geotracking evidence" LE has collected is not useful to the D, and that b/c the D's are not geotracking experts they can't know if the geotracking report is useful, meaningful, exculpatory, or not. The D's Reply agrees that the D are not experts, so the D hired a geotracking expert to evaluate the P's geotracking discovery as provided, thus the D's further questions as to the investigation's geotracking expert reports on the P's geotracking.

IMO, it's reasonable (given past is prologue), to predict that Gull will (very shortly) deny D's their latest request for Dismissal (heard 3/18).
IMO, Defense continues to make a deep appellate record via its pre-trial filings.

Ongoing: Discovery disclosure demands from the D upon the P, and Expert compensation requests from the D to the Court.
On deck: pre-trial motions/rules of evidence hearings (none filed yet).
Rules of Evidence: I'm aware of no decisions from the Court to date as to evidence/experts/witnesses being ruled in or out for trial.

Please reference this case's docket, where filings, the Court's calendaring, and the Courts minute decisions are maintained for public access. The docket link has been posted in this thread. The 3/18 transcript is not on the docket but was previously attached in this thread.

MOO MOO

Gull ruled already.

Link below.

Judge denies Delphi murder suspect's motion to dismiss the charges​

---

​

RON WILKINS Lafayette Journal & Courier

DELPHI, Ind. — Special Judge Frances Gull denied Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen's request to dismiss the charges because of destroyed recordings of possible suspects that might exonerate Allen.
Allen's attorneys argued the destroyed video recordings might contain evidence indicating someone other than Allen is the killer.
Steve Mullins, Delphi police chief at the time of the killings, testified during a March 18 hearing that the recorder mistakenly was left on, and recordings from Feb. 14 through Feb. 20, 2017, were lost after the drive's large memory was filled.
In her order published Tuesday, Gull wrote, "(T)he defendant has failed to show that the evidence was exculpatory and that it was destroyed negligently, intentionally, or in bad faith. The recordings of interviews between February 14-20, 2017 were lost due to human error or were spontaneously lost due to the equipment resetting."
Allen is charged with murder in the Feb. 13, 2017, killings of teenagers Libby German and Abby Williams, who were abducted off of the trails around the Monon High Bridge east of Delphi. Search parties found their bodies the morning of Feb. 14, 2017, on the north banks of Deer Creek about a quarter of a mile from the bridge.
More: What the new Delphi murder documents say about the crime scene, other suspects
Allen's attorneys have suggested in court filings that Libby and Abby's killings were part of an Odinist ritual sacrifice and two alleged Odinists were interviewed in the days after the girls' bodies were discovered.

Judge Frances Gull speaks at the Oct. 19 hearing of accused Delphi killer Richard Allen.
ENOS, JANE
In her order published Tuesday, Gull wrote, "As neither ... (men) were suspects at the time the interviews were conducted, the defendant has failed to show that the lost interview of (one of the men) ... was material and that the lack of a recorded interview of ... (the other man) was material. As defendant must establish materiality to claim a denial of due process and Allen had failed to do so, his due process rights have not been violated."
Gull also heard evidence on March 18 for and against holding Allen's attorneys — Brad Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin — in contempt, accusing them of violating a gag order by publishing a news release about the case the day before the order was signed Dec. 2, 2022. In the contempt hearing, Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland also accused Rozzi and Baldwin of being responsible for leaked photos from the crime scene.
Gull has not yet ruled on the contempt allegations.
Allen's trial is scheduled to begin May 13 and run through the end of the month.
Jury selection will be in Fort Wayne.
After the Allen County residents are empaneled as jurors, the trial will move to Delphi, where the evidence will be presented and jurors will decide Allen's fate.
The court blocked off three weeks for the trial, including Memorial Day.

 

[GrandmaBear]

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

Doesn't sound like anything fishy or O related to me. The guy threw a Molotove at the building which could have injured any number of people and no one could have known Ferency would go out to check it out.

It there's anything fishy or deaths on anyone's hands, it is the suicide if you ask me and imo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Read the report.

Double negative?

Yes you had a double negative which makes what you wanted to say the opposite. Lol.

 

[Olenna]

Gull ruled already.

Link below.

RSBM

Thank you!! Ah ha! There she be:





Looks like we're waiting on the Contempt Decision ... and the 3rd Franks Hearing Decision.
My bad memory! Mixing the Franks on the docket as the Dismissal motion in my above post. I'll add the 3rd Franks in that post with an edit note.
(Edit is for me ... I check my notes here later. I've noted my edit ... credit Tresir)

Thanks again. This crazy case ... takes a village.
Back to real life; hope to see y'all closer to Trial time!

 

[GrandmaBear]

The defense did read professor Turco's statement, and it's different than what Liggett provided in the PCA. I don't hear anything from Turco himself on that recording. This can all be found by reading the whole thing.

Other things in there are that the witness who saw the car parked said it was a 60s Mercury and not black. This filing doesn't mention it, but Allen said he parked on the opposite side of the park. Yet another lie or "mistake" by the prosecution. If you read the whole thing with an open mind, you'll see how weak the prosecutions case is.

The PCA was a bunch of malarkey made up by the prosecution in order to secure a search warrant. The judge, most likely, wouldn't have approved it if he was given all the evidence and the truth.

The Odinism thing was dismissed out of hand because the cops were either afraid to go there, or were too lazy to mount a full investigation.

Tell me what you think when you've read the whole thing.

They called the car a '65 Ford Focus I believe lol. Attention to detail fails them and is not their strong suit. So does it fail anyone who is their proofreader, or writer or if they are vice versa. It stood out to me immediately. That's what they said. Not their only error or falsehood.

Turco did not say what the defense states he did. He never said Os did this, he said someone trying to make it look as if they did to throw things off was the impression I had if I recall and because it was such a poor attempt to mimic runes an O would have known how to do or something on that order. Defense misconstrues or changes much. They also for some reason it seems have not interviewed Turco themselves or if they have, it sure isn't known.

I read the entire thing. You can tell Tresir to read it but you can't tell me because I did read the entire whole thing (a sheer waste of my limited time) and I found it lacking with no meat anywhere near worthy to be granted a Frank's hearing. They'd truly better get their wandering rambling ways under control before they are in front of a jury. I don't see how anyone can be impressed with the job they do either in written form or in arguing in a courtroom thus far.

The judge has denied/dismissed hasnt' she? They need to move on and use their time wisely once. Imo. They can always appeal this and probably anything they want after trial, God knows most all of them do.

I think this is a good spot to remind even if they could place an O there which they can't, it isn't a theory that removes their client, his bullet or anything else. They flat out state men by name did these murders but they can't put them there and it sounds like most have alibis. RA doesn't--his alibi is he WAS there and so WAS his bullet, car, etc. I mean what always remains is that inherent problem. They can argue it in court as an alternate theory if they wish but if I were the prosecution, I'd point these things out repeatedly and shoot it out of the water.

I'd also go back to there's a bigger desperation and perhaps it is why they keep at it to get rid of something we don't know about imo. They are very concerned about something and whatever it is is probably the same thing that had RA confessing.

Jmo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Or dismissed because it was a big nothing burger.

I read it. And it is. Agree 100 percent.

 

[Imamazed]

FOX59 exclusive: Attorney for Delphi defense team puzzled by court and prosecutor blow back

INDIANAPOLIS — Special Judge Fran Gull in the Delphi double murder trial has issued a Gag Order to prohibit the State and the Defense and investigators from talking to the media about the case agai…

fox59.com

 

[GrandmaBear]

Judge Gull is obviously doing everything she can to sabotage the defenses efforts. Everything pointing to RA's innocence is a nothing burger to her. She won't even provide funding for some of their efforts.

Funding needs to be supported and that's what she says when she denies it, that the requests weren't supported. I'm not surprised they failed to offer reason or adequate support. These are taxpayer dollars not hers, there has to be reason. It isn't "she" who provide such from her personal funds.

And you have your own opinion and not all agree. She isn't sabotaging anything, what I see is someone who wants an orderly courtroom, professional attorneys doing their jobs, no circuit and b.s. leaks and suicides and a man who first just took pictures, then was asked to test their theor with media and on the internet and then became an associate, almost an employee again when they tried to claim their communications, or things done was work product and protected. Has everyone THOUGHT about THAT changing story...?

She wants to know RA has adequate attorneys when she's seen the opposite.

This woman has a career and achievements and promotions and a reputation known to be fair. Why would one of the biggest trials that she'd I am sure love to look like a Judge Newman would she want otherwise than to be thought of as fair and outstanding and one who does her job. It makes no sense.

The only ones that change this or cause all the issues are B & R. Fight for your client but can you show there is a reason you are considered to be a professional and ethical lawyer because I sure haven't seen it, and I seriously wonder about their education quite honestly. That isn't sarcasm, it is looking flat out at all I/we've seen and it's what I see.

Imo nothing they have ever filed or argued has ever had enough substance. All the way back to RA and wanting him moved. They talk the mental problems it caused for instance but then don't want the records seen. One of MANY examples and I could go on.

They are either way out of their depth and level of experience and expertise or they put on a great show of acting like it.

I was thinking the last two days it is almost too bad the DP isn't charged here as then we could be sure RA would have highly qualified attorneys to ensure he was represented well. I am pretty sure they aren't, would never pass to qualify and if I am mistaken and then are, then there are REAL problems there that such could be.

Anyhow jmo and I know yours, pretty sure you know mine so nothing new other than I think some things bear repeating but not everything all of the time. Like the O theory does not take RA out of the picture in any way shape or form nor can they be placed there.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The bosses were dismissing Odinism. Two officers agreed, with each other, that Odinism had something to do with it. One is dead. I'm not sure of the names. @Tresir posted how one of them was killed. It has his name.

Turco's report is mentioned in the filing. It is also proven the prosecution was trying to keep his name away from the defense, why? They knew he thought differently then they were presenting.

The prosecution lied about several things to get the warrant. RA doesn't drive a 60s Mercury. The PCA added the word "bloody" to the witness' statement, as well as changing the color of the jacket from tan to blue in order to match BG. What about the changing of the witness' report about seeing a man in his twenties?

I have not seen, nor heard, any of the things they mention. However, it seems that both sides have the recordings. We'll see at trial which side is right.

He didn't drive a 60s Focus either, so there's that. LOL.

I'd like to point something out to you, you take every single word and thing made to sound good to do the best possible to get a warrant for Logan as fact but you do the opposite here. That thing was polished and words carefully chosen and facts as well.

Please don't try to have it both ways. That's Burger King where you can do that. Oops in that case it's "your" way I guess. Still....

 

[GrandmaBear]

The bosses were dismissing Odinism. Two officers agreed, with each other, that Odinism had something to do with it. One is dead. I'm not sure of the names. @Tresir posted how one of them was killed. It has his name.

Turco's report is mentioned in the filing. It is also proven the prosecution was trying to keep his name away from the defense, why? They knew he thought differently then they were presenting.

The prosecution lied about several things to get the warrant. RA doesn't drive a 60s Mercury. The PCA added the word "bloody" to the witness' statement, as well as changing the color of the jacket from tan to blue in order to match BG. What about the changing of the witness' report about seeing a man in his twenties?

I have not seen, nor heard, any of the things they mention. However, it seems that both sides have the recordings. We'll see at trial which side is right.

The bosses are the experienced ones and I could tell you a story about the cops under more seasoned ones. More than a few. They go to a different kind of school these days and they also grew up watching as many did things like CSI and so forth. Do you want a story of how they can read ridiculous things into something with no real reason that a seasoned one wouldn't see through? I'll save you that. For now. Not to mention I'm sure they'd have loved to become the case crackers and relevant with a story all would want to hear from them forever after, a nutty one. If anyone gets time I'd like to know their ages at the time, length and in what position, etc. I've wondered for awhile now but haven't taken the time. Here I am here instead of watching Tom who did a show earlier today.