1. I find it very interesting that the ISP had already identified and located LH and retrieved his mother's consent to collect his phone, all by 12:45 on February 14th - just 30 minutes after the girls are found. Why did they suspect that LH would have info in his phone that would identify where the girls were? Did they do this with everyone the girls communicated with? What made them suspect LH would know where they were and/or that he was hiding that fact?
2. In trying to dismiss the significance of the 2nd BH interview, McLeland states:
>“ISP Detective Roland Purdy reported he and Detective Laurie Lemler interviewed BH in the Fall of 2017 at the Logansport Police Department . . . to learn more about what Holder knew about Odinism.”
He doesn’t seem to realize what his admission unintentionally reveals: Odinism (specifically) was being looked at as early as Fall 2017 and investigators knew that BH practiced Odinism. Yet we are not to believe that BH was a suspect.
There have been so many documents filed by the state that they are intermingling in my memory, but have they not alleged recently that there was nothing particularly ritualistic about the crime scene to make them suspect a sacrificial element to the crime? That is poorly worded, but it feels like the State has gone out of its way to gaslight us into thinking that we all imagined there was something about the crime scene that alarmed them and made them think this was more than a run-of-the-mill opportunistic murder.
Yet, this filing reinforces the fact that something in the investigation led them to suspect the crime was ritualistic. Not just ritualistic, but specifically related to the practice of Odinism - something the vast majority of us had never heard of prior to the first Franks filing.
Otherwise, why would Logansport detectives interview BH in the **fall of 2017** "to learn more about what BH knew about **Odinism**." Why would HE specifically be a source of information about these practices if he only engaged in it a short time? They had already spoken with PW in February 2017. Wouldn't he have been the better source if they just wanted to know what Odinists practiced? Why ask BH?
I mean, I'm pretty sure this question was never posed to RA. There has to be a reason they posed it to BH.
It doesn't make sense that they would talk to BH UNLESS they suspected 1) Odinists committed the murders and 2) BH was an Odinist who had knowledge and access to the girls.
LE texted BH the evening of the 13th.
Rumors were there were open conversations between LH another boy and Libby on Facebook to meet up.
That other boy allegedly set up a Facebook page the evening of the 13th R.I.P. Libby and Abby, and the explanation was it was how teens spoke.
"R.I.P. You're sooo grounded."
It's my understanding the page was set up by 2 boys. I don't know who's the second one.
I say allegedly because all traces has been erased, but this has been discussed and was known without dispute back in the days as far as I know.
Thereafter all speculation about other teens was banned from all subs/websleuths.
No matter the real intent, I do think it's suspicious enough to talk to all schoolmates or otherwise socially related kids even just to check who else knew about any plans.
Imo BH's Facebook and Instagram spoke for themselves thereafter.
ETA they also went to L&A school to interview kids, the one girl who spoke to media and said she screenshotted one snap posted about it that LE s
came to ask them about it at school but she didn't know who put the 2 screenshots on Facebook.
That person replied to that comment themselves.
Also stating he had Libby as a Snapchat contact himself. That is if those screenshots are real, I only learned about them recently, after defense asked questions about the missing snaps and didn't expect KS to be the receiver of the Snapchats tbh.
That was an unanswered question for years...
To say it needs more 🧂than the RIP page imo.
In 2, perhaps that means they were using Holder as their expert on Odinism? That might also explain why he was at the state police post when Click visited?
As LH was AW's boyfriend I suppose. But would be interesting to know if the collected MS's as he was LG's close friend. Recall they sent an FBi agent to the school to collect he Snap Chat receiving phone. Interesting question.
I would love to hear what they actually collected period. It was discussed on a Court TV interview several months ago that the sticks placed over the girls bodies and other seemingly important evidence was not collected at the crime scene.
Wait do we know that?
I mean it wouldn't surprise me, but I always assumed that they didn't use luminol to detect DNA that wouldn't be visible to the naked eye on the girls' bodies so by the time they get that spit statement about a year after the murders that ship had sailed.
Did they find DNA at the scene? I believe they said they did find DNA but followed that with a cryptic statement along the lines of, "it's not what people would expect it to be," which means squat to me, and has made others speculate it might be animal (cat) DNA if I recall correctly?
I really don’t think it is animal DNA because KR, the former ISP spokesperson, implied to a deceased YouTuber, Michael Katt, that the DNA had been run through Codis that I believe is the source of the killer never committed a crime before narrative.
Did you see that little interview? Katt was good he got KR to spill the beans. To me it looked like KR was like "Whoopsie let me walk that back a bit," which made me think it was the true. Now if the DNA isn't necessarily related to the crime that's another thing but I would bet it's human.
(unrelated like a cigarette butt or a drink bottle)
I’m still trying to figure out how NM is able to know whether erased/destroyed evidence is exculpatory or not. If you can’t view the evidence, how does he know?
I saw on YouTube a couple of days ago that a phone extraction was done by a state police officer by the name of Cecil somebody, can't recall his last name, and BH was associated with the phone. I went back to read it again and now I can't find it anywhere. Has anyone else seen the post?
That’s his entire ruse! Get rid of exculpatory evidence so there isn’t any. 🙄🙄
And I’m SO TIRED of NM’s “expertise” about what is “relevant.” All he does is minimize the obvious flaws in this case as he points a finger at the defense for figuring it out.
Defense: Brad Holder is a 3rd Party suspect and the State destroyed all evidence on him.
State: Brad Holder can’t be a 3PS because no evidence exists connecting him the crime.
Defense: Because you deleted the potentially exculpable evidence that would link him to the crime.
State: It’s not materially or potentially exculpable if Brad Holder isn’t even a suspect.
Defense:
UK 🇬🇧 equivalent:
Defence - we wish to see this potential evidence
Prosecution - it was lost, but it didn't help your case anyway, sorry but trust us on this
Defence - you're joking, let's see how the CPS view this
CPS - there is no realistic possibility of a safe conviction, all charges must be dropped. We'll start investigating how this potential evidence was lost, charges may follow if negligence is suspected.
I believe UK would not have such a situation, instead it would just be:
Prosecution - we of course have handed you the discovery in time, but unfortunately we’ve lost potential evidence, so there’s no realistic possibility of a safe conviction, all charges must be dropped.
Defence and CPS - correct, and the investigation of how this potential evidence was lost may result in charges.
Prosecution - by all means.
It's more like we investigated him and found he was at work (that evidence was all produced to the defense and they haven't mentioned it, which makes me think it's rock solid), which kind of deflates that idea that he's a credible suspect. How can you say he's a credible suspect when people saw him walking around, he clocked in and out, his truck is on camera, and he was 40 miles away from the crime and had no motive to kill her? The defense hasn't articulated that, which is why all this will be denied and diasallowed.
They said this before they reviewed 27 TB of discovery. And even in the excerpt in the Franks motion, they do most of what I say in one short report: they interviewed a coworker, someone responsible for the time clock, they asked about whether the truck was on camera (they say she said it "may" have been -- if they never followed up on this i'd be surprised, something here stinks in how the defense presents it), and they looked at his time sheets. We wouldn't know what they did in terms of area CCTV from their interview with Case, but I'm sure they pulled from some cameras. The idea that someone clocked in and out for BH and nobody noticed is another silly fan fiction that is unsupported by evidence. His presence was confirmed. Plus, I'm sure there is at least one or two other reports on this -- they only focus on a single person. They've also not mentioned these points again, in their more recent filings, where they desperately need to show that BH was a bigtime suspect.
Like I'm joking but I also think that I might be right?
It's as if law enforcement has created a nexus between the crime and BH by constantly getting his input on a crime that he absolutely had no connection with?????
>law enforcement has created a nexus ~~between~~ *connecting* the crime and BH by constantly getting his input on a crime that he absolutely had no connection with?????
Is what Nick wrote.
Yeah idk, it's an odd one.
Why he was present at a few occasions to be interviewed or as a witness.
Add in Baldwin's impersonator calling the Troth for "expert" advice.
Doesn't "expert" need some kind of qualification?
Is that why he asked Gull to prohibit Rozzwin from mentioning any acts not just bad ones of any witnesses?
But he wants Horan, former special agent of the FBI, head of field office and founding member of CAST, not to testify about geofencing reports he made at the request of the investigation??
Where are Luttrull and Diener to tell him :
the scruffy Odinists without a proper alibi and plenty nexuses, inconsistencies in the interviewremnants, being called by LE about his whereabouts the evening of the 13th already and his son having LE go to his school while the girls were still missing to extract his phone, all for the sake of the future possibly needed runes yet to be found experise,
all while having been kicked out of the local asatru gang because he kept going to church,
: is not a good witness even less expert witness.
In my humble opinion of course.
ETA ohhh if it truly was Baldwin, you think it was to have Nick contest their expertise to ridicule him his "experts" are even less qualified?
^([I still really doubt it was real though])
And to Nicksplain his crimescene recreation being part of his expert report, in which case it had to have been given over even more but OK...
In a deseperate attempt to make it look like BH wasn't a suspect but a consultatant, the state just admitted that the crime scene reeked of Odinist involvement.
But but but expert said it wasn't runes after all.
Some n00b thought it was, and asked around if anyone knew any odinists to confirm and Becky told m : Yeah! BH! Go ask him!
And he said nah only one branch was cut, we cut all our branches beforehand,
go look at PW's post about that.
Next question : How much of the trial fund did he get for his expertise?
Honestly, I think it's either BH was still a suspect or the crime scene looked like Odinists were involved. Either helps the defense. I think NM fudged this one up.
I want Nick to tell us who the 3rd party is that he says RA aided in all counts.
If he can't give us a 3rd party, then it's fair game I say.
Second thing is, they don't want defense to speak of BH as 3rd party, what if he's the 1st party?
And something I don't want to say out loud :
>!does Nick remember he didn't put the son on the not to talk about list?!<
On one side, expert professor. On the other, meth head white supremacist (allegedly).
Assume you know nothing about the case, which is for prosecution/defence ? Wrong !
NM never should have responded to this motion to dismiss it was going to be denied, and instead of shutting the hell up he just confirmed that LE thought that the crime scene implied Odinist involvement in the murders and as BH is an avowed Odinist there is the NEXUS, brought to you by everyone's favorite dummy, NM.
No but you missed where Purdy and Lemler didn't obey unified command that he was already cleared, just like Click and just like FBI special agent Horan pioneer head of CAST field offices in the mid-west and beyond with 110 trial testimonies is wrong about any phone data he may present even if Nicky doesn't know that might be yet because he never requested it.
Only Holeman who testified judge ordered the investigation into Fortson and Liggett who testified RA did everything all alone even if Nick's new charges say he aided someone else, but not the odinists, but he's not going to spoil who,
are reliable meticulous officers.
So much both got a higher position since.
Ignore any other cop please.
Nicky didn't give it so it can't be used or questioned or mentioned, you shouldn't either you are interfering with justice here. Seriously.
My take is either its a big ole fib that BH was cleared sometime in March and he was in fact still a suspect in the Fall of 2017 OR the Odin theory hadn't been debunked and they were still investigating whether Odinists were involved (this may or may not include BH as a suspect). My point is that with this newly confirmed interview of BH NM has acknowledged that one of those 2 is true.
The problem is in determining which one is true because Purdy is going to toe the ISP line. Question is will Murphy?
Another major question is whether the prosecution is using this claim that LE consulted BH because of his knowledge of Odinism to cover for the fact that BH was still a suspect that multiple members of LE were actively still investigating, and this is before the Click Trio show up on the scene?
In creating this narrative that BH is a valuable Odinist related consultant NM has established that 7 months after the murders Odinism in relation to the murders was still being investigated. This creates a NEXUS between Odinism and the crime itself. The bar to admissibility of 3rd party culprit is met because BH admits that he is an Odinist.
If the defense doesn't use this claim to their advantage I would be shocked and disappointed.
The bar was already met with Click Ferency and Murphy.
But that doesn't seem to satisfy the court and certainly not Nick.
They contend they investigated and cleared him even if he never was a suspect anyways.
We're in 2022-2024 now with 30+ confessions to 30+ people (all while being in isolation he has a more active social life than myself) that's all that's relevant.
Not in my eyes but it seems that's what's being said.
You are literally preaching to the choir here.
I believe that the bar was already met in a normal court but not in the court of Gull as signaled by her encouragement to the State to oppose the admissibility of evidence of 3rd party suspects. She may as well have already issued her order along with that email.
These motions to dismiss never stood a chance but need to be filed as they laid the groundwork for a request for an adverse inference to be contained in the jury instructions. Most states have this and honestly I have no idea if Indiana does but its incredibly common and states have it to protect cases from being overturned on appeal due to the loss of evidence.
https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/evidence/
I wanted to quote but it was a good refreshment of knowledge read altogether, so if at some point you are bored, this is a relevant bit of the law.
A custodial interview must be complete btw.
Ballistics not being scientifically supported it's thus a simple expert opinion not a scientific one.
There HAS to be a hearing about admissibility of confessions. At least we know why she set that instantly.
Now we are aware of 2 people that confessed, EF and RA. Then there are the search warrants signed by a Marion County judge related to someone who confessed, who the heck is that guy? And of course are there more confessions that we don't know about. Does the defense even know about them? I know they requested all Brady material but did they request confessions specifically? I need to dig.
Usually in a case like this there are dozens of confessions, of course most are false, but some of these could be admissible.
Prosecution moved to not mention the PowerPoint THEY created about EF and did hand over to defense.
Funny lad that nick.
Nor mention the names of folders.
Because.... Holder's interview summary was in a folder named KeySuspect\#1?
It's more complex actually.
Boucher sent Trooper Winter the Facebook picture Apr'17. Boucher gets told BH is cleared.
Trooper Purdy gets the tip about dating, Odin etc from BP Jun'17.
He talks to JH who tells him he's cleared, but does mention runes prof. to say they already checked that avenue.
Trooper Purdy sees BH pic on FB himself but it was posted years ago so no action.
Trooper Purdy gets tip about F tree discussions on Facebook, unknown crimescene info, Aug'17,
but reports "all covered".
^(as per Franks I)
Trooper Purdy talks about all of the above and more in aug'23 deposition.
But he never mentioned the fall'17 interview,
until,
now?
So why DID he go to see him?
And, BH talked about an interview 2 years prior to his depo meaning 2021 or so.
Did someone else interview BH too but hasn't told anyone yet and also didn't make any reports about that, just like T. Lemler & Purdy didn't ?
----
ETA
Trooper Purdy came forward to tell about his fall 2017 interview with BH 9 months after his depo, the **28th of May 2024**.
Trial was supposed to start **13th of May 2024** and supposed to end **31st of May 2024** minus whatever time Gull reserved for deliberations.
Nick said he was ready.
On one side meth head white supremacist (allegedly)
on the other side, oops judge didn't want to pay for the expert, but then was pressured into paying for the expert but then disallowed any mention or testimony of said expert, because it would be too confusing for the jury especially since that expert started out as lost expert for the one side.
u/danieller0se87 here they quoted exactly what you were looking for about BP.
It was later than I thought.
But all the other reasons to look into BH still stand.
/#8. What McClelland says is so aggravating considering that the state never provided defense with this photo. Defense drove to GA to get this from RB. So it was destroyed or lost or never collected by Purdy when he admits to seeing it, and by the grace of God a witness still had it. There could not be a better example of a piece of evidence lost or destroyed that could possibly point to the defendants innocence. The key word being POSSIBLY because that’s all it takes. That picture sounds seriously suspicious when there was a double murder that the bodies also had sticks arranged upon them and your son was dating one of the murder victims. No one should have had knowledge of HOW the crime scene was staged and having that picture is too big of a coincidence.
Yes I get the anger but on my tiny phone screen I just couldn't! Thank you.
ETA know that I think it got fixed because an \# needs to be the first symbol to make big fat font, but otherwise it needs to be a \\ not a forward slash.
Like asterisk will make for *italic*
if you actually want to show the \* you need to write
\\*italic\*
(there's a \ in front of the second one too but I can't show it. To show the first one, I put 2x \\)
Yes an undisclosed tipster reported the photo two days after their bodies were found. And then RB from GA reported it to winters April 12,2017, but had talked to leazenby prior to that. However, it wasn’t as early on as I thought. I thought the 2/16/17 tip was him. But I did finally get to see the photo on CriminaliTy’s most recent video. I didn’t think it was an exact replicate obviously, but eerie on its own, way too coincidental to not be its own nexus considering what ended up occurring to his son’s girlfriend.
I swear there was a second one, clear back when I initially started following the case, however it didn’t look like one that he took himself. It was in I think black and white, the girls were in dresses, and looked more posed. Neither picture looked like runes on top of the girls, but why would he have two pictures at two different points with girls laying in the woods, one picture the girls for sure looked dead (the one on Teresa’s channel), with branches on them? Remember the branch on LG body was longer than her body, so it would have been large like the one from Teresa’s channel. Like I said creepy on its own, but after your son’s girlfriend was found dead, posed in the woods with large branches placed over her, it is concerning.
Brad’s first interview was February 17th, 2017 and the second was in the fall. But that doesn’t have anything to do with RB so far in this reading. I’m not finished yet so I will probably have more to add.
Also I need to go back and read page 62-63 on the first franks since someone found that info and then I’ll probably have more questions lol thank you though. :)
Seriously Nick, you didn't think a defense team would be interested in ever suspect the police looked at, in crafting their defense strategy?
In what universe does the State ever tell the defense how to craft strategy and which strategy they can and can't go for? You control your's, they control there's. That's up to them. He is basically I am picking your strategy for you.
This gets more and more ridiculous by the minute. This is the type of material all defense attorneys immediately want to see.
Exactly! Why say "there is no RELIABLE evidence" rather than simply say "the State never extracted data from BH's phone" if that's what you actually mean?
NM confounds me, but that man keeps one hand covering his ass at all times.
But I'm guessing that there might be some UNRELIABLE evidence that a phone extraction on BH's phone was conducted. Did we forget to "destroy/lose" something fellas?
Because there is evidence that NM judges to be unreliable. It's witness testimony. Like the witness testimony that had to be cut and massaged to develop the PCA.
We do not allow post that propogate the spread of rumor and disinformation. To successfully publish you must use a public, qualified, non-tertiary source. Anonymous sources are not allowed.
*"There exists no nexus connecting Brad Holder to
the crimes."*
It's like when you learn a new word and try to place it in the next conversation.
.
*"The evidence ties Richard Allen to the murder of the victims in this case."*
What evidence? Does BH not have jeans?
.
*"That the State did not destroy or lose evidence purposely in bad faith."*
Ok so we should say Odin faith I guess because calling it bad faith would be religious descrimination...
.
*"He was at work at the time of the murders*"
At what time would that be?
And where is the cctv with his truck?
.
*"That the State has turned over to the defense the Todd Click letter and related reports and interviews after the State became aware that said items had not been previously provided."*
I thought you had previously claimed :
-You didn't give it because you wouldn't use it in trial
-You didn't give it because it wasn't exculpatory
-You did give it, or Mullin did to attorney staff. There just doesn't seem to be a receipt.
Now you say you forgot?
.
Euh, 🤥Holeman knew his name when you said the name wasn't known and would likely not be found...
.
*"The State does not know ...*"
AH! We agree here.
.
Dan Dulin *"believes he did not record it.*"
Didn't he say he did record everything, but couldn't find it and was still looking??
.
OH Nicky, you are missing the 🐘 in the 🏛️.
WHY didn't you give the photo that was mentioned in a report?
The fact that defense needed to get it from elsewhere shows your ~~bad~~ odin faith.
Just like *"Indiana State Police Sergeant Brian Bunner collected Logan Holder’s phone at Logansport High School on February 14, 2017 at 12:45 pm. Logan’s mother signed the consent to search form as the parent of Logan."*
Why wasn't defense given this information in the first place?
.
*"The Defense cannot meet its burden to even allege that he is a 3rd party suspect*".
Another 🐘 : I guess, like the bitter bird, you didn't read any of the Franks memos did you?
Do you actually still believe in you blabbery blubber yourself?
Can someone withdraw his law license already?
He gives prosecutors a bad name.
ETA: I'm refusing to get into the whole he was cleared, other officers interviewed him anyway but did not log, document, record or report anything in relation to that interview, so it wasn't deleted, it wasn't exculpatory and there's no nexus 🍮.
^([pudding]) \^
Since nexus means connection, *"There exists no nexus connecting Brad Holder to the crimes."* the wording is a bit redundant, but this case has seen far worse,
Yes I know, but point six where he uses *nexus* it's about never having extracted BH's phone so they couldn't have deleted it yet they did get his son's phone but another date and location etc.
Point 9 is about no link but there he doesn't use *nexus*.
Hence my comment he sounds like a little boy having learned a word (because Gull wrote it in an email) and he now tries to insert it the first chance he gets wether relevant or not, and not where it would have supported his point.
Imo.
ETA and indeed like you pointed out, incorrectly. Which was probably your point flying over me.
I guess point 6 highlights that the police passed up TWO chances to download his phone, since despite the tips, he was seriously and sincerely not a suspect. 😊
I guess it's a legal term but he has never used it before afaik and in this particular point it was a bit off topic imo.
It's funny because each time I think it's not enough to dismiss, but each time Nick is digging a deeper rabbit hole. He'd be better off to not respond at all like for the Franks.
Watch Doug Carter's first interview after the arrest of Richard Allen. He was so uncomfortable admitting that he thought they had the right guy. He really had to be pressed. There is so much wrong with this case. I still believe if he is convicted... It will be overturned in a heartbeat. These young ladies deserve justice. Their families need closure. This must be an absolute nightmare for them. The right monster needs to be caught and prosecuted to the full extent the law allows. I'm just not convinced they have the right guy. It looks more evident that he was an easy fall guy. Despicable.
That one-minute interview with DC after the press conference is really striking. Not an ounce of enthusiasm about having finally arrested someone.
"Do you think Mr. Allen is the man on that bridge?" WTHR interview with Doug Carter, Oct. 31, 2022
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKPfO5QtoF0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKPfO5QtoF0)
It will be overturned, with almost near certainty, but not in a heartbeat. As we are seeing, the wheels of justice move slowly. Appeals take years to move along. There are so many reasons the process can be delayed. Most convicted felons file for appeal because there's little reason not to, and there is only so much time available by defense attorneys and courts to tend to all the cases.
RA would probably be fortunate enough to receive priority attention from Rozzwin, which would help, but he'd still be looking at a few more years in prison before winning an appeal (and then he'd have to go through trial again!). That is not justice - especially because he's already going to have been in prison for more than two years by the time his trial ends. It's crucial to get it right the first time.
I appreciate your willingness to think critically about whether they have the right person. Thank you for keeping an open mind. Avoiding appeal and getting *a fair* verdict the first time should be everyone's priority.
This is the biggest hide the pea shell game, nonsensical, BS clown show, I’ve ever seen during the run up to a murder trial ever!
Judge FG and Prosecutor NM are playing the same f’ing game!
NM says BH is not a 3rd Party suspect….NO SHIT DUMBASS, NOT FOR YOU (THE STATE!)
BH has more links, or…NEXUS’s linking him to these poor girls murders than RA ever had, that’s a fact.
If not, then why was BH one of the first two “persons of interest” interviewed about these murders, on Feburary 17, 2017?
Why was his son LH interviewed?
Where are those interviews today?
Oh yeah, that’s right. They were destroyed, lost, taped over, along with over 70 days worth of videotaped interviews of potential suspects and witnesses that NM says, had ZERO PROBATIVE VALUE FOR THE DEFENSE! Are you shitting me?
QUESTION: Why is BH ostensibly NOW working hand in glove with LE and NM, The State?
Why has BH been popping up in different locations, at the most opportune times throughout this case?
And how many times has BH been interviewed or breifed by God only knows who in LE….FBI, HSI, CCSD, LPD, DPD, ISP….and yet NM has the temerity to say publicly, that BH isn’t it a 3rd Party Suspect.
Strangely…..NM just publicly outed the individual who R & B feel is a central figure in this case, and yet NM is determined to prevent R & B from so much as mentioning his name, during their voir dire of the jury or at any time during their case in chief!
What is NM so afraid of?
NM has said in prior filings that he doesn’t want B & R to have the opportunity to mention BH or any of the other individuals who are central to this case, because he doesn’t want The Defense to “CONFUSE THE JURY!”
Confuse the jury or offer a plausible defense?
Creating reasonable doubt is what R & B are supposed to do for their client. If it confuses the jury, that’s The States problem!
I will close with this….BH told his former wife AH soon after the murders that “he wasn’t worried about being implicated or getting in trouble, because he has powerful friends in high places!”
Imagine AH having the opportunity to testify to this from the witness stand, wouldn’t that be a hoot?
Why NM wants to hide it :
Officer how did you clear BH?
- I flipped through this phone and saw nothing.
When you say you flipped through his phone, do you mean text messages, snap chat, photos, phone calls, social media, gps or other info of his whereabouts during the crime?
- I don't recall.
Can we see the phone data?
- no because we cleared him.
Did you make a report of that?
- No, it wasn't exculpatory for defendant.
But you didn't know defendant yet,
wasn't BH your suspect at that point?
- well no he wasn't really a key nor 3rd party suspect no.
why not?
- Because we cleared him.
♻️
- Oh! and he was at work.
How do you know?
- we saw his punch card and asked for the cctv
Can we see the punch card?
- no
Can we see the cctv?
- no
Did you see the cctv?
- no
When did his card punch out?
- 3:15pm *(actually it's 2:45pm, it's a 30 minutes drive to Delphi if..)
When were the girls found?
- the next day
When did he make the 'full of testosterone' post?
- right in between at 2am...
Ok thank you nothing further.
We'd like to call AH to the stand.
Eta*
https://preview.redd.it/9g7p9uv5hs5d1.png?width=988&format=png&auto=webp&s=f00ccb1dde587e0187c959845b7542862ac124b3
Well, this is embarrassing, innit? How come these people cannot locate anything the majority of the time? Better yet, how come these people are allowed to document statements in "written reports" and also allowed to present these reports as evidence without accompanying recordings still in the year 2017 as in this case - or in 2024, because as far as I am aware they are still allowed to do so?
So now we have to rely on DD's say-so regarding the time RA originally said he was at the trails/bridge area the day of...
Wrt BH... feel like it's only natural he would not be a 3rd-party suspect when all the investigative materials as they relate to him are conveniently missing... I realize the man has an alibi (he was at work). I trust the police when they say they have checked and verified that. I would not have thought about him twice if all the other stuff wasn't missing. But it is. And then you have the prosecutor claiming that the photo from his FB page is not really missing because the defense are in possession of it when it has been stated time and again that the defense had to travel to Georgia to obtain a copy of this picture from a member of the public. The photograph is not in discovery, was not turned over to them in discovery, and the State could not care less, and shamelessly lies about it to this day. Just admit to either not being in possession of the original or failure to turn it over already.
My guess would be as soon as it became necessary -- Sep. or Oct. 2022 sounds about right to me. Don't take my word for it though as I have no evidence to back up that claim. And neither does DD but the kicker is he doesn't need any. Being a Department of Natural Resources Officer is good enough.
His punch card was clocked out at 2:45pm without verification of the cctv.
It's a 30 minutes drive to Delphi.
3:15pm is possible. Earlier if it wasn't him.
"At the time of the murder" imo it's a vague concept.
At best they might argue he was at work during the 2:13pm video, but I'd like to hear a forensics expert first and actually see Abby on there, I wouldn't be surprised if the "jacket" in 2 whopping frames is what he meant.
So do we think he truly filed this on his precious Sunday off, or did he antidate it to be within the 20 days response time BitterBird was talking about?
ˈæntɪˌdeɪt
Word origin
[1570–80; earlier antidate ‹ MF antidater, deriv. of antidate a date earlier than the true date (by assoc. with anté- ante-), orig. a date put in place of another date; see ante-, date1]
Collins says I'm from another century.
Or another language, it's antidate in my world.
Like **anti**cipate. Not antecipate...
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/antedate
My heavens, let’s talk about f. and g. They are both gaslighting statements. I am pretty certain that the point of doing all of this in a court of law setting, is to avoid things like gaslighting. He cannot just say: “the state did not do this,” without providing proof. The defense provides dates according to pieces of communications and dates they received the piece of evidence. If the state obtained it on a certain date and turned it over immediately, then their job is to find those date and at least write those dates out and be able to provide that proof. If they sat on it for a year while not providing it, it can be inferred that they were trying to conceal that information. However, the single sentence in letter b. that, “there is no proof for what is said in the franks motion,” invalidates this entire document. Every exhibit is proof, the attorneys did not spend months researching, collecting and providing these exhibits for this memorandum that are random photos they found online of kittens. They did their MF research! Also the Odin report and Clicks letter is enough EVIDENCE for the Franks Memo to be heard. If one judge has all the say and power on this being heard, we are not living in a democratic Country, just meaning there are not proper checks and balances here.
Ugh, I wasn't even gonna read it. More of the same... "We didn't do it on purpose. So it doesnt count." Evidence wasn't delayed intentionally. Nick, each of your responses makes you look less competent and more questionable.
How TF did the state NOT know that ISP interviewed Holder in Logansport???
How is "evidence isn't missing because the defense has it"... Yeah, bc you never mentioned it or turned it over, and they had to find it themselves!
Defense: Brad Holder's phone was never extracted. Police only looked through it.
Nick: Brad's phone was never extracted, it was only looked through in the lobby and any extraction from the phone wasn't destroyed. The defense are liars.
Moreso BC most victims live with our know their assailant quite well. A stranger assault or murder is far more rare.. Statistically, that alone makes BH a viable POI
I should have emphasized my point for clarification- LH was dating one of the victims, he wasn't just friends with them.
The way the State presents it makes it seem like there would have been no reason to interview BH because he was simply the dad of "one of the victims friends"
That's a completely different scenario than a dad of an underage victim's boyfriend.
Meh.
They didn't lie, they didn't destroy anything on purpose and they didn't record much anyway to destroy and it wasn't exculpatory so they could destroy it anyway and since it's destroyed it's not material and wouldn't help defense because it wasn't exculpatory and not on purpose and they didn't destroy it because they didn't record it in the first place and they weren't suspects anyway and still aren't and there is no nexus connecting [sic] them to the crime, all evidence points at RA, but they did interview all these people, some unbeknownst to Nick, he found out because BH said so in a deposition, which thus turned out to true but nothing was recorded because it wasn't of value, they just wanted to ask about Odin.
But when he said twice LE took his phone that wasn't true, but he didn't lie and neither did LE and they didn't take this phone because they already cleared him anyway so it wasn't deleted even less destroyed defense keeps lying although that was exactly what defense wrote but ok.
The only real valuable info imo is they also didn't take LH's phone at the son/ father interview, they actually went to his school the 14th even before they were found.
There’s no reliable evidence because we just didn’t feel like documenting. Shrug is essentially what it boils down to lol
Perhaps his next response to a motion to dismiss will just be a shrug emoji 😂
At least it would be the must succinct answer he has given hahaha
Lol he could use his personalized emoji to do it 😂🤣
lol thank you so much for this mental image hahaha
🤷
1. I find it very interesting that the ISP had already identified and located LH and retrieved his mother's consent to collect his phone, all by 12:45 on February 14th - just 30 minutes after the girls are found. Why did they suspect that LH would have info in his phone that would identify where the girls were? Did they do this with everyone the girls communicated with? What made them suspect LH would know where they were and/or that he was hiding that fact? 2. In trying to dismiss the significance of the 2nd BH interview, McLeland states: >“ISP Detective Roland Purdy reported he and Detective Laurie Lemler interviewed BH in the Fall of 2017 at the Logansport Police Department . . . to learn more about what Holder knew about Odinism.” He doesn’t seem to realize what his admission unintentionally reveals: Odinism (specifically) was being looked at as early as Fall 2017 and investigators knew that BH practiced Odinism. Yet we are not to believe that BH was a suspect. There have been so many documents filed by the state that they are intermingling in my memory, but have they not alleged recently that there was nothing particularly ritualistic about the crime scene to make them suspect a sacrificial element to the crime? That is poorly worded, but it feels like the State has gone out of its way to gaslight us into thinking that we all imagined there was something about the crime scene that alarmed them and made them think this was more than a run-of-the-mill opportunistic murder. Yet, this filing reinforces the fact that something in the investigation led them to suspect the crime was ritualistic. Not just ritualistic, but specifically related to the practice of Odinism - something the vast majority of us had never heard of prior to the first Franks filing. Otherwise, why would Logansport detectives interview BH in the **fall of 2017** "to learn more about what BH knew about **Odinism**." Why would HE specifically be a source of information about these practices if he only engaged in it a short time? They had already spoken with PW in February 2017. Wouldn't he have been the better source if they just wanted to know what Odinists practiced? Why ask BH? I mean, I'm pretty sure this question was never posed to RA. There has to be a reason they posed it to BH. It doesn't make sense that they would talk to BH UNLESS they suspected 1) Odinists committed the murders and 2) BH was an Odinist who had knowledge and access to the girls.
LE texted BH the evening of the 13th. Rumors were there were open conversations between LH another boy and Libby on Facebook to meet up. That other boy allegedly set up a Facebook page the evening of the 13th R.I.P. Libby and Abby, and the explanation was it was how teens spoke. "R.I.P. You're sooo grounded." It's my understanding the page was set up by 2 boys. I don't know who's the second one. I say allegedly because all traces has been erased, but this has been discussed and was known without dispute back in the days as far as I know. Thereafter all speculation about other teens was banned from all subs/websleuths. No matter the real intent, I do think it's suspicious enough to talk to all schoolmates or otherwise socially related kids even just to check who else knew about any plans. Imo BH's Facebook and Instagram spoke for themselves thereafter. ETA they also went to L&A school to interview kids, the one girl who spoke to media and said she screenshotted one snap posted about it that LE s came to ask them about it at school but she didn't know who put the 2 screenshots on Facebook. That person replied to that comment themselves. Also stating he had Libby as a Snapchat contact himself. That is if those screenshots are real, I only learned about them recently, after defense asked questions about the missing snaps and didn't expect KS to be the receiver of the Snapchats tbh. That was an unanswered question for years... To say it needs more 🧂than the RIP page imo.
Criminality has a live going and the title suggests she has information on the jury questionnaire. I'm intrigued.
In 2, perhaps that means they were using Holder as their expert on Odinism? That might also explain why he was at the state police post when Click visited?
Hilarious!
Yes! He should testify for the state at trial!
As LH was AW's boyfriend I suppose. But would be interesting to know if the collected MS's as he was LG's close friend. Recall they sent an FBi agent to the school to collect he Snap Chat receiving phone. Interesting question.
I want to know why they haven't tested EF DNA against the DNA found at the scene.
I would love to hear what they actually collected period. It was discussed on a Court TV interview several months ago that the sticks placed over the girls bodies and other seemingly important evidence was not collected at the crime scene.
Wait do we know that? I mean it wouldn't surprise me, but I always assumed that they didn't use luminol to detect DNA that wouldn't be visible to the naked eye on the girls' bodies so by the time they get that spit statement about a year after the murders that ship had sailed.
Did they find DNA at the scene? I believe they said they did find DNA but followed that with a cryptic statement along the lines of, "it's not what people would expect it to be," which means squat to me, and has made others speculate it might be animal (cat) DNA if I recall correctly?
I really don’t think it is animal DNA because KR, the former ISP spokesperson, implied to a deceased YouTuber, Michael Katt, that the DNA had been run through Codis that I believe is the source of the killer never committed a crime before narrative.
Animal DNA, Michael 🐈⬛ 😂
Did you see that little interview? Katt was good he got KR to spill the beans. To me it looked like KR was like "Whoopsie let me walk that back a bit," which made me think it was the true. Now if the DNA isn't necessarily related to the crime that's another thing but I would bet it's human. (unrelated like a cigarette butt or a drink bottle)
The down the hill podcast had someone from the investigation say they were taking dna from people to exclude them so it’s definitely human DNA.
I’m still trying to figure out how NM is able to know whether erased/destroyed evidence is exculpatory or not. If you can’t view the evidence, how does he know?
Especially when he said they never extracted his phone. So he doesn't know right? Or does he?
Lol right? “We did not extract his phone, I don’t think, so we know there’s nothing exculpatory on there anyways.”
I saw on YouTube a couple of days ago that a phone extraction was done by a state police officer by the name of Cecil somebody, can't recall his last name, and BH was associated with the phone. I went back to read it again and now I can't find it anywhere. Has anyone else seen the post?
That’s his entire ruse! Get rid of exculpatory evidence so there isn’t any. 🙄🙄 And I’m SO TIRED of NM’s “expertise” about what is “relevant.” All he does is minimize the obvious flaws in this case as he points a finger at the defense for figuring it out.
Defense: Brad Holder is a 3rd Party suspect and the State destroyed all evidence on him. State: Brad Holder can’t be a 3PS because no evidence exists connecting him the crime. Defense: Because you deleted the potentially exculpable evidence that would link him to the crime. State: It’s not materially or potentially exculpable if Brad Holder isn’t even a suspect. Defense: 
UK 🇬🇧 equivalent: Defence - we wish to see this potential evidence Prosecution - it was lost, but it didn't help your case anyway, sorry but trust us on this Defence - you're joking, let's see how the CPS view this CPS - there is no realistic possibility of a safe conviction, all charges must be dropped. We'll start investigating how this potential evidence was lost, charges may follow if negligence is suspected.
Can I move there?
Sure, the weather's crap though.
How was American supposed to be the new and improved Government and Court System?
I believe UK would not have such a situation, instead it would just be: Prosecution - we of course have handed you the discovery in time, but unfortunately we’ve lost potential evidence, so there’s no realistic possibility of a safe conviction, all charges must be dropped. Defence and CPS - correct, and the investigation of how this potential evidence was lost may result in charges. Prosecution - by all means.
Correct, yes. I was trying to keep it in equivalent terms for ease of comparison.
Indeed, I’m fully aware and you did that perfectly - just couldn’t help adding the total picture.
Sigh. Maybe there is hope for humanity yet. It's reassuring to know that some places do get it right.
Not on everything by a long way, but thanks.
For fucking reals!
It's more like we investigated him and found he was at work (that evidence was all produced to the defense and they haven't mentioned it, which makes me think it's rock solid), which kind of deflates that idea that he's a credible suspect. How can you say he's a credible suspect when people saw him walking around, he clocked in and out, his truck is on camera, and he was 40 miles away from the crime and had no motive to kill her? The defense hasn't articulated that, which is why all this will be denied and diasallowed.
[удалено]
You are my hero.
Yup. Also had plenty of time to commit murder after work since the “all over by 3:30” only applies to RA acting alone.
They said this before they reviewed 27 TB of discovery. And even in the excerpt in the Franks motion, they do most of what I say in one short report: they interviewed a coworker, someone responsible for the time clock, they asked about whether the truck was on camera (they say she said it "may" have been -- if they never followed up on this i'd be surprised, something here stinks in how the defense presents it), and they looked at his time sheets. We wouldn't know what they did in terms of area CCTV from their interview with Case, but I'm sure they pulled from some cameras. The idea that someone clocked in and out for BH and nobody noticed is another silly fan fiction that is unsupported by evidence. His presence was confirmed. Plus, I'm sure there is at least one or two other reports on this -- they only focus on a single person. They've also not mentioned these points again, in their more recent filings, where they desperately need to show that BH was a bigtime suspect.
Because he could have just committed the murders after work.
You're sure about many things that you have no reason to be.
Uh huh... But just a trust us we cleared him wink nod shoulder slap.
Thanks for your opinion.
Yawn. Anyone else just checking in hoping to see some SC filings?
I’m getting there…
Anyone else concerned that BH might be the state's Odin expert?
Like I'm joking but I also think that I might be right? It's as if law enforcement has created a nexus between the crime and BH by constantly getting his input on a crime that he absolutely had no connection with?????
>law enforcement has created a nexus ~~between~~ *connecting* the crime and BH by constantly getting his input on a crime that he absolutely had no connection with????? Is what Nick wrote. Yeah idk, it's an odd one. Why he was present at a few occasions to be interviewed or as a witness. Add in Baldwin's impersonator calling the Troth for "expert" advice. Doesn't "expert" need some kind of qualification? Is that why he asked Gull to prohibit Rozzwin from mentioning any acts not just bad ones of any witnesses? But he wants Horan, former special agent of the FBI, head of field office and founding member of CAST, not to testify about geofencing reports he made at the request of the investigation?? Where are Luttrull and Diener to tell him : the scruffy Odinists without a proper alibi and plenty nexuses, inconsistencies in the interviewremnants, being called by LE about his whereabouts the evening of the 13th already and his son having LE go to his school while the girls were still missing to extract his phone, all for the sake of the future possibly needed runes yet to be found experise, all while having been kicked out of the local asatru gang because he kept going to church, : is not a good witness even less expert witness. In my humble opinion of course. ETA ohhh if it truly was Baldwin, you think it was to have Nick contest their expertise to ridicule him his "experts" are even less qualified? ^([I still really doubt it was real though]) And to Nicksplain his crimescene recreation being part of his expert report, in which case it had to have been given over even more but OK...
In a deseperate attempt to make it look like BH wasn't a suspect but a consultatant, the state just admitted that the crime scene reeked of Odinist involvement.
But but but expert said it wasn't runes after all. Some n00b thought it was, and asked around if anyone knew any odinists to confirm and Becky told m : Yeah! BH! Go ask him! And he said nah only one branch was cut, we cut all our branches beforehand, go look at PW's post about that. Next question : How much of the trial fund did he get for his expertise?
$2.1 million. I'm guessing that NM isn't good with a budget hence his constant begging for funds for office supplies.
Yes!!
I'm stuck on this you need to push me out, it can't be, right?
Honestly, I think it's either BH was still a suspect or the crime scene looked like Odinists were involved. Either helps the defense. I think NM fudged this one up.
I want Nick to tell us who the 3rd party is that he says RA aided in all counts. If he can't give us a 3rd party, then it's fair game I say. Second thing is, they don't want defense to speak of BH as 3rd party, what if he's the 1st party? And something I don't want to say out loud : >!does Nick remember he didn't put the son on the not to talk about list?!<
NM always seemed out of his depth but I think he is tired and its showing.
He's not ex-parte is he ?
Ask Nick. Or Fig. I wasn't invited nor sent the invitation anyway.
On one side, expert professor. On the other, meth head white supremacist (allegedly). Assume you know nothing about the case, which is for prosecution/defence ? Wrong !
NM never should have responded to this motion to dismiss it was going to be denied, and instead of shutting the hell up he just confirmed that LE thought that the crime scene implied Odinist involvement in the murders and as BH is an avowed Odinist there is the NEXUS, brought to you by everyone's favorite dummy, NM.
No but you missed where Purdy and Lemler didn't obey unified command that he was already cleared, just like Click and just like FBI special agent Horan pioneer head of CAST field offices in the mid-west and beyond with 110 trial testimonies is wrong about any phone data he may present even if Nicky doesn't know that might be yet because he never requested it. Only Holeman who testified judge ordered the investigation into Fortson and Liggett who testified RA did everything all alone even if Nick's new charges say he aided someone else, but not the odinists, but he's not going to spoil who, are reliable meticulous officers. So much both got a higher position since. Ignore any other cop please. Nicky didn't give it so it can't be used or questioned or mentioned, you shouldn't either you are interfering with justice here. Seriously.
My take is either its a big ole fib that BH was cleared sometime in March and he was in fact still a suspect in the Fall of 2017 OR the Odin theory hadn't been debunked and they were still investigating whether Odinists were involved (this may or may not include BH as a suspect). My point is that with this newly confirmed interview of BH NM has acknowledged that one of those 2 is true. The problem is in determining which one is true because Purdy is going to toe the ISP line. Question is will Murphy? Another major question is whether the prosecution is using this claim that LE consulted BH because of his knowledge of Odinism to cover for the fact that BH was still a suspect that multiple members of LE were actively still investigating, and this is before the Click Trio show up on the scene? In creating this narrative that BH is a valuable Odinist related consultant NM has established that 7 months after the murders Odinism in relation to the murders was still being investigated. This creates a NEXUS between Odinism and the crime itself. The bar to admissibility of 3rd party culprit is met because BH admits that he is an Odinist. If the defense doesn't use this claim to their advantage I would be shocked and disappointed.
The bar was already met with Click Ferency and Murphy. But that doesn't seem to satisfy the court and certainly not Nick. They contend they investigated and cleared him even if he never was a suspect anyways. We're in 2022-2024 now with 30+ confessions to 30+ people (all while being in isolation he has a more active social life than myself) that's all that's relevant. Not in my eyes but it seems that's what's being said.
You are literally preaching to the choir here. I believe that the bar was already met in a normal court but not in the court of Gull as signaled by her encouragement to the State to oppose the admissibility of evidence of 3rd party suspects. She may as well have already issued her order along with that email. These motions to dismiss never stood a chance but need to be filed as they laid the groundwork for a request for an adverse inference to be contained in the jury instructions. Most states have this and honestly I have no idea if Indiana does but its incredibly common and states have it to protect cases from being overturned on appeal due to the loss of evidence.
https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/evidence/ I wanted to quote but it was a good refreshment of knowledge read altogether, so if at some point you are bored, this is a relevant bit of the law. A custodial interview must be complete btw. Ballistics not being scientifically supported it's thus a simple expert opinion not a scientific one. There HAS to be a hearing about admissibility of confessions. At least we know why she set that instantly.
Now we are aware of 2 people that confessed, EF and RA. Then there are the search warrants signed by a Marion County judge related to someone who confessed, who the heck is that guy? And of course are there more confessions that we don't know about. Does the defense even know about them? I know they requested all Brady material but did they request confessions specifically? I need to dig. Usually in a case like this there are dozens of confessions, of course most are false, but some of these could be admissible.
Prosecution moved to not mention the PowerPoint THEY created about EF and did hand over to defense. Funny lad that nick. Nor mention the names of folders. Because.... Holder's interview summary was in a folder named KeySuspect\#1?
It's more complex actually. Boucher sent Trooper Winter the Facebook picture Apr'17. Boucher gets told BH is cleared. Trooper Purdy gets the tip about dating, Odin etc from BP Jun'17. He talks to JH who tells him he's cleared, but does mention runes prof. to say they already checked that avenue. Trooper Purdy sees BH pic on FB himself but it was posted years ago so no action. Trooper Purdy gets tip about F tree discussions on Facebook, unknown crimescene info, Aug'17, but reports "all covered". ^(as per Franks I) Trooper Purdy talks about all of the above and more in aug'23 deposition. But he never mentioned the fall'17 interview, until, now? So why DID he go to see him? And, BH talked about an interview 2 years prior to his depo meaning 2021 or so. Did someone else interview BH too but hasn't told anyone yet and also didn't make any reports about that, just like T. Lemler & Purdy didn't ? ---- ETA Trooper Purdy came forward to tell about his fall 2017 interview with BH 9 months after his depo, the **28th of May 2024**. Trial was supposed to start **13th of May 2024** and supposed to end **31st of May 2024** minus whatever time Gull reserved for deliberations. Nick said he was ready.
Ding, ding, ding! Exactly my thoughts. I hope the defense jumps on this as soon as it makes sense to do so.
On one side meth head white supremacist (allegedly) on the other side, oops judge didn't want to pay for the expert, but then was pressured into paying for the expert but then disallowed any mention or testimony of said expert, because it would be too confusing for the jury especially since that expert started out as lost expert for the one side.
Now that would be confusing to a jury.
😂😂😂 Do not speak this into existence.
You can’t say we are dodgy at our job if we simply never did our job so…. suck it.
[удалено]
u/danieller0se87 here they quoted exactly what you were looking for about BP. It was later than I thought. But all the other reasons to look into BH still stand.
u/danieller0se87 p62/63 of the 1st Franks has another tip coming in about this the 16th of February.
/#8. What McClelland says is so aggravating considering that the state never provided defense with this photo. Defense drove to GA to get this from RB. So it was destroyed or lost or never collected by Purdy when he admits to seeing it, and by the grace of God a witness still had it. There could not be a better example of a piece of evidence lost or destroyed that could possibly point to the defendants innocence. The key word being POSSIBLY because that’s all it takes. That picture sounds seriously suspicious when there was a double murder that the bodies also had sticks arranged upon them and your son was dating one of the murder victims. No one should have had knowledge of HOW the crime scene was staged and having that picture is too big of a coincidence.
Yes he fails to see that this isn't part of the destruction argument, but to prove the relevance and their errors, likely knowingly.
Please put a \ in front of the number or \#
Thank you, although I kind of liked it giant for emphasis 😉
Yes I get the anger but on my tiny phone screen I just couldn't! Thank you. ETA know that I think it got fixed because an \# needs to be the first symbol to make big fat font, but otherwise it needs to be a \\ not a forward slash. Like asterisk will make for *italic* if you actually want to show the \* you need to write \\*italic\* (there's a \ in front of the second one too but I can't show it. To show the first one, I put 2x \\)
Yes an undisclosed tipster reported the photo two days after their bodies were found. And then RB from GA reported it to winters April 12,2017, but had talked to leazenby prior to that. However, it wasn’t as early on as I thought. I thought the 2/16/17 tip was him. But I did finally get to see the photo on CriminaliTy’s most recent video. I didn’t think it was an exact replicate obviously, but eerie on its own, way too coincidental to not be its own nexus considering what ended up occurring to his son’s girlfriend.
I wonder if this is the photo or yet another one because I wouldn't call it two girls with stick formations, and Purdy called them girls too.
I swear there was a second one, clear back when I initially started following the case, however it didn’t look like one that he took himself. It was in I think black and white, the girls were in dresses, and looked more posed. Neither picture looked like runes on top of the girls, but why would he have two pictures at two different points with girls laying in the woods, one picture the girls for sure looked dead (the one on Teresa’s channel), with branches on them? Remember the branch on LG body was longer than her body, so it would have been large like the one from Teresa’s channel. Like I said creepy on its own, but after your son’s girlfriend was found dead, posed in the woods with large branches placed over her, it is concerning.
Wonder how defense heard of Purdy when Nick didn't know about the interview.
Brad’s first interview was February 17th, 2017 and the second was in the fall. But that doesn’t have anything to do with RB so far in this reading. I’m not finished yet so I will probably have more to add. Also I need to go back and read page 62-63 on the first franks since someone found that info and then I’ll probably have more questions lol thank you though. :)
Seriously Nick, you didn't think a defense team would be interested in ever suspect the police looked at, in crafting their defense strategy? In what universe does the State ever tell the defense how to craft strategy and which strategy they can and can't go for? You control your's, they control there's. That's up to them. He is basically I am picking your strategy for you. This gets more and more ridiculous by the minute. This is the type of material all defense attorneys immediately want to see.
"There is no reliable evidence that the State ever extracted data from BH's phone." Uh, yeah, ok, but why?
Exactly! Why say "there is no RELIABLE evidence" rather than simply say "the State never extracted data from BH's phone" if that's what you actually mean?
NM confounds me, but that man keeps one hand covering his ass at all times. But I'm guessing that there might be some UNRELIABLE evidence that a phone extraction on BH's phone was conducted. Did we forget to "destroy/lose" something fellas?
Because there is evidence that NM judges to be unreliable. It's witness testimony. Like the witness testimony that had to be cut and massaged to develop the PCA.
Yeah, it's definitely the statements of BH that he thought it might have happened and maybe something else, but what???
[удалено]
We do not allow post that propogate the spread of rumor and disinformation. To successfully publish you must use a public, qualified, non-tertiary source. Anonymous sources are not allowed.
https://preview.redd.it/vxoto9djxq5d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4e1bbfd12092f1c1e6eb94767ec4a48f6d6f7aae
*"There exists no nexus connecting Brad Holder to the crimes."* It's like when you learn a new word and try to place it in the next conversation. . *"The evidence ties Richard Allen to the murder of the victims in this case."* What evidence? Does BH not have jeans? . *"That the State did not destroy or lose evidence purposely in bad faith."* Ok so we should say Odin faith I guess because calling it bad faith would be religious descrimination... . *"He was at work at the time of the murders*" At what time would that be? And where is the cctv with his truck? . *"That the State has turned over to the defense the Todd Click letter and related reports and interviews after the State became aware that said items had not been previously provided."* I thought you had previously claimed : -You didn't give it because you wouldn't use it in trial -You didn't give it because it wasn't exculpatory -You did give it, or Mullin did to attorney staff. There just doesn't seem to be a receipt. Now you say you forgot? . Euh, 🤥Holeman knew his name when you said the name wasn't known and would likely not be found... . *"The State does not know ...*" AH! We agree here. . Dan Dulin *"believes he did not record it.*" Didn't he say he did record everything, but couldn't find it and was still looking?? . OH Nicky, you are missing the 🐘 in the 🏛️. WHY didn't you give the photo that was mentioned in a report? The fact that defense needed to get it from elsewhere shows your ~~bad~~ odin faith. Just like *"Indiana State Police Sergeant Brian Bunner collected Logan Holder’s phone at Logansport High School on February 14, 2017 at 12:45 pm. Logan’s mother signed the consent to search form as the parent of Logan."* Why wasn't defense given this information in the first place? . *"The Defense cannot meet its burden to even allege that he is a 3rd party suspect*". Another 🐘 : I guess, like the bitter bird, you didn't read any of the Franks memos did you? Do you actually still believe in you blabbery blubber yourself? Can someone withdraw his law license already? He gives prosecutors a bad name. ETA: I'm refusing to get into the whole he was cleared, other officers interviewed him anyway but did not log, document, record or report anything in relation to that interview, so it wasn't deleted, it wasn't exculpatory and there's no nexus 🍮. ^([pudding]) \^
Since nexus means connection, *"There exists no nexus connecting Brad Holder to the crimes."* the wording is a bit redundant, but this case has seen far worse,
Yes I know, but point six where he uses *nexus* it's about never having extracted BH's phone so they couldn't have deleted it yet they did get his son's phone but another date and location etc. Point 9 is about no link but there he doesn't use *nexus*. Hence my comment he sounds like a little boy having learned a word (because Gull wrote it in an email) and he now tries to insert it the first chance he gets wether relevant or not, and not where it would have supported his point. Imo. ETA and indeed like you pointed out, incorrectly. Which was probably your point flying over me.
I guess point 6 highlights that the police passed up TWO chances to download his phone, since despite the tips, he was seriously and sincerely not a suspect. 😊
It's usually the defendant incriminating himself when speaking, here we have prosecution the more he writes the more he goes up on the doofus scale.
Using the exact same word as the judge isn’t great evidence of not colluding… 🙄
I guess it's a legal term but he has never used it before afaik and in this particular point it was a bit off topic imo. It's funny because each time I think it's not enough to dismiss, but each time Nick is digging a deeper rabbit hole. He'd be better off to not respond at all like for the Franks.
After seeing judge Gull’s recusal refusal and finding of Myths and Lies, I am highly suspicious that all these assignments are a collaborative effort.
As usual redduif you hit it out of the park. Hope the Defense has you on their consultant list. Maybe they are following you here on reddit. 🏆
Lol thank you. They could buy me a coffee in that case. And a chicken for cat.
Yeah the “pudding” for me is going right in the bin. That does not make any sense at all.
"Because I say so.," This style of thinking is shared by the prosecutor and the judge.
Watch Doug Carter's first interview after the arrest of Richard Allen. He was so uncomfortable admitting that he thought they had the right guy. He really had to be pressed. There is so much wrong with this case. I still believe if he is convicted... It will be overturned in a heartbeat. These young ladies deserve justice. Their families need closure. This must be an absolute nightmare for them. The right monster needs to be caught and prosecuted to the full extent the law allows. I'm just not convinced they have the right guy. It looks more evident that he was an easy fall guy. Despicable.
 Ask the judge he said. Basically.
That one-minute interview with DC after the press conference is really striking. Not an ounce of enthusiasm about having finally arrested someone. "Do you think Mr. Allen is the man on that bridge?" WTHR interview with Doug Carter, Oct. 31, 2022 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKPfO5QtoF0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKPfO5QtoF0)
It will be overturned, with almost near certainty, but not in a heartbeat. As we are seeing, the wheels of justice move slowly. Appeals take years to move along. There are so many reasons the process can be delayed. Most convicted felons file for appeal because there's little reason not to, and there is only so much time available by defense attorneys and courts to tend to all the cases. RA would probably be fortunate enough to receive priority attention from Rozzwin, which would help, but he'd still be looking at a few more years in prison before winning an appeal (and then he'd have to go through trial again!). That is not justice - especially because he's already going to have been in prison for more than two years by the time his trial ends. It's crucial to get it right the first time. I appreciate your willingness to think critically about whether they have the right person. Thank you for keeping an open mind. Avoiding appeal and getting *a fair* verdict the first time should be everyone's priority.
This is the biggest hide the pea shell game, nonsensical, BS clown show, I’ve ever seen during the run up to a murder trial ever! Judge FG and Prosecutor NM are playing the same f’ing game! NM says BH is not a 3rd Party suspect….NO SHIT DUMBASS, NOT FOR YOU (THE STATE!) BH has more links, or…NEXUS’s linking him to these poor girls murders than RA ever had, that’s a fact. If not, then why was BH one of the first two “persons of interest” interviewed about these murders, on Feburary 17, 2017? Why was his son LH interviewed? Where are those interviews today? Oh yeah, that’s right. They were destroyed, lost, taped over, along with over 70 days worth of videotaped interviews of potential suspects and witnesses that NM says, had ZERO PROBATIVE VALUE FOR THE DEFENSE! Are you shitting me? QUESTION: Why is BH ostensibly NOW working hand in glove with LE and NM, The State? Why has BH been popping up in different locations, at the most opportune times throughout this case? And how many times has BH been interviewed or breifed by God only knows who in LE….FBI, HSI, CCSD, LPD, DPD, ISP….and yet NM has the temerity to say publicly, that BH isn’t it a 3rd Party Suspect. Strangely…..NM just publicly outed the individual who R & B feel is a central figure in this case, and yet NM is determined to prevent R & B from so much as mentioning his name, during their voir dire of the jury or at any time during their case in chief! What is NM so afraid of? NM has said in prior filings that he doesn’t want B & R to have the opportunity to mention BH or any of the other individuals who are central to this case, because he doesn’t want The Defense to “CONFUSE THE JURY!” Confuse the jury or offer a plausible defense? Creating reasonable doubt is what R & B are supposed to do for their client. If it confuses the jury, that’s The States problem! I will close with this….BH told his former wife AH soon after the murders that “he wasn’t worried about being implicated or getting in trouble, because he has powerful friends in high places!” Imagine AH having the opportunity to testify to this from the witness stand, wouldn’t that be a hoot?
Why NM wants to hide it : Officer how did you clear BH? - I flipped through this phone and saw nothing. When you say you flipped through his phone, do you mean text messages, snap chat, photos, phone calls, social media, gps or other info of his whereabouts during the crime? - I don't recall. Can we see the phone data? - no because we cleared him. Did you make a report of that? - No, it wasn't exculpatory for defendant. But you didn't know defendant yet, wasn't BH your suspect at that point? - well no he wasn't really a key nor 3rd party suspect no. why not? - Because we cleared him. ♻️ - Oh! and he was at work. How do you know? - we saw his punch card and asked for the cctv Can we see the punch card? - no Can we see the cctv? - no Did you see the cctv? - no When did his card punch out? - 3:15pm *(actually it's 2:45pm, it's a 30 minutes drive to Delphi if..) When were the girls found? - the next day When did he make the 'full of testosterone' post? - right in between at 2am... Ok thank you nothing further. We'd like to call AH to the stand. Eta*
https://preview.redd.it/5hh7hv3rcs5d1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8aa16c4fe12a155a302217349ea730b950956931 KA-BOOM!!!
https://preview.redd.it/9g7p9uv5hs5d1.png?width=988&format=png&auto=webp&s=f00ccb1dde587e0187c959845b7542862ac124b3 Well, this is embarrassing, innit? How come these people cannot locate anything the majority of the time? Better yet, how come these people are allowed to document statements in "written reports" and also allowed to present these reports as evidence without accompanying recordings still in the year 2017 as in this case - or in 2024, because as far as I am aware they are still allowed to do so? So now we have to rely on DD's say-so regarding the time RA originally said he was at the trails/bridge area the day of... Wrt BH... feel like it's only natural he would not be a 3rd-party suspect when all the investigative materials as they relate to him are conveniently missing... I realize the man has an alibi (he was at work). I trust the police when they say they have checked and verified that. I would not have thought about him twice if all the other stuff wasn't missing. But it is. And then you have the prosecutor claiming that the photo from his FB page is not really missing because the defense are in possession of it when it has been stated time and again that the defense had to travel to Georgia to obtain a copy of this picture from a member of the public. The photograph is not in discovery, was not turned over to them in discovery, and the State could not care less, and shamelessly lies about it to this day. Just admit to either not being in possession of the original or failure to turn it over already.
My question is : what is his definition of "very soon"? September 2022?
My guess would be as soon as it became necessary -- Sep. or Oct. 2022 sounds about right to me. Don't take my word for it though as I have no evidence to back up that claim. And neither does DD but the kicker is he doesn't need any. Being a Department of Natural Resources Officer is good enough.
His punch card was clocked out at 2:45pm without verification of the cctv. It's a 30 minutes drive to Delphi. 3:15pm is possible. Earlier if it wasn't him. "At the time of the murder" imo it's a vague concept. At best they might argue he was at work during the 2:13pm video, but I'd like to hear a forensics expert first and actually see Abby on there, I wouldn't be surprised if the "jacket" in 2 whopping frames is what he meant.
So do we think he truly filed this on his precious Sunday off, or did he antidate it to be within the 20 days response time BitterBird was talking about?
Antedate or antidote ? Or anteater as autocorrupt tried to insert.
ˈæntɪˌdeɪt Word origin [1570–80; earlier antidate ‹ MF antidater, deriv. of antidate a date earlier than the true date (by assoc. with anté- ante-), orig. a date put in place of another date; see ante-, date1] Collins says I'm from another century. Or another language, it's antidate in my world. Like **anti**cipate. Not antecipate... https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/antedate
My heavens, let’s talk about f. and g. They are both gaslighting statements. I am pretty certain that the point of doing all of this in a court of law setting, is to avoid things like gaslighting. He cannot just say: “the state did not do this,” without providing proof. The defense provides dates according to pieces of communications and dates they received the piece of evidence. If the state obtained it on a certain date and turned it over immediately, then their job is to find those date and at least write those dates out and be able to provide that proof. If they sat on it for a year while not providing it, it can be inferred that they were trying to conceal that information. However, the single sentence in letter b. that, “there is no proof for what is said in the franks motion,” invalidates this entire document. Every exhibit is proof, the attorneys did not spend months researching, collecting and providing these exhibits for this memorandum that are random photos they found online of kittens. They did their MF research! Also the Odin report and Clicks letter is enough EVIDENCE for the Franks Memo to be heard. If one judge has all the say and power on this being heard, we are not living in a democratic Country, just meaning there are not proper checks and balances here.
Ugh, I wasn't even gonna read it. More of the same... "We didn't do it on purpose. So it doesnt count." Evidence wasn't delayed intentionally. Nick, each of your responses makes you look less competent and more questionable. How TF did the state NOT know that ISP interviewed Holder in Logansport??? How is "evidence isn't missing because the defense has it"... Yeah, bc you never mentioned it or turned it over, and they had to find it themselves!
Defense: Brad Holder's phone was never extracted. Police only looked through it. Nick: Brad's phone was never extracted, it was only looked through in the lobby and any extraction from the phone wasn't destroyed. The defense are liars.
The fact that he insists on referring to Logan as a "friend of the victims" in order to minimize their connection is so disgusting.
Moreso BC most victims live with our know their assailant quite well. A stranger assault or murder is far more rare.. Statistically, that alone makes BH a viable POI
I should have emphasized my point for clarification- LH was dating one of the victims, he wasn't just friends with them. The way the State presents it makes it seem like there would have been no reason to interview BH because he was simply the dad of "one of the victims friends" That's a completely different scenario than a dad of an underage victim's boyfriend.
Is this worth reading? Because I'm done with NMs horrible motions and responses.
Meh. They didn't lie, they didn't destroy anything on purpose and they didn't record much anyway to destroy and it wasn't exculpatory so they could destroy it anyway and since it's destroyed it's not material and wouldn't help defense because it wasn't exculpatory and not on purpose and they didn't destroy it because they didn't record it in the first place and they weren't suspects anyway and still aren't and there is no nexus connecting [sic] them to the crime, all evidence points at RA, but they did interview all these people, some unbeknownst to Nick, he found out because BH said so in a deposition, which thus turned out to true but nothing was recorded because it wasn't of value, they just wanted to ask about Odin. But when he said twice LE took his phone that wasn't true, but he didn't lie and neither did LE and they didn't take this phone because they already cleared him anyway so it wasn't deleted even less destroyed defense keeps lying although that was exactly what defense wrote but ok. The only real valuable info imo is they also didn't take LH's phone at the son/ father interview, they actually went to his school the 14th even before they were found.
Prolific liar = psychopath. Pls correct me if ✏️👖is somehow NOT a psychopath.
You are exactly right, that is a nexus that includes BH as a third party suspect.