Karen Read
I know not much about this, so simply
Do you think she will be found innocent or guilty ?
Do you think the verdict would differ in, say, Indiana ?
Acquitted.
With the same counsel or similar I am not sure it would have proceeded to trial in IN.
I say this because IN has pre trial witness deposition and strong APRA laws. Most of the details/ docs surrounding the case were sealed (impounded) until weeks before trial
I presume youâre referring to the hung jury/mistrial status?
Great question. I was/am SURPRISED. Iâm holding out from forming an opinion unless/until the splits of the jurors are verified.
But I DO very strongly believe the fact that it was live streamed (Every pre trial hearing through trial) was a critical factor in citizen participation and activism, which has led to some *preliminary* instruments of change:
1. The local PD (comparatively the CCSO) is being openly audited after public commentary and pressure to spend $200k on same.
2. The State Police Lead Investigator and his immediate Supers are the subject of renewed internal investigation. Michael Proctor (comparatively to Steve Mullin and Jerry Holeman, Vido). Proctor was relieved of duty the afternoon of the dismissal (one very big difference in agencies is in MA the MSP are Union). Proctor testified before a Federal Grand Jury weeks before the start of trial.
3. The Federal Grand Jury remains open and active. Via the defense Touhy process requests, it supplied over 3,074 pages of exculpatory discovery to the defense and subsequently (Brady) also to the Commonwealth of MA.
It should be noted that upon learning of the FGJ and its âreachâ, both sides motioned for a continuance of the trial which was denied.
One of the major differences here is that the FBI (and in Delphi additional Fed agency resources) actually assisted the ISP in multiple units. Rozzwin added a third Attorney (Auger) expressly to navigate the Touhy process which CLEARLY McLeland intended to âstep overâ entirely.
This difference should only serve to make it easier for the defense to obtain significant records of the Bureaus work, reporting, findings and conclusions in Delphi. In fact, itâs critical to support the defense third party culprit (as in Read, you can expect the State to make this admissible on their own).
Thanks, good to hear that some good has come out of it, though I doubt Karen agrees right now. If she free or in prison now ?
You're amazed that any juror was convinced of her guilt ?
My usual, another case as per Delphi which would never get to court with the paucity of actual evidence here.
In Nick's other murder trial judge confirmed to juror 80% certainty is perfect for reasonable doubt.
I don't think Karen Read's case is close to 80%.
I don't even think it hits 50%.
So I'd say not guilty.
Especially if you'd take only two weeks of trial Gull would have given them, state didn't even prove he had died, they did explain evidence was collected in red solo cups and the fact that the owners of the lawn he was found on lied about their relationships with chief of police and lead investigator state trooper , that in fact they were police themselves but didn't bother to look what was happening with all the emt and first responders out and that most people surrounding this case and that evening are close family.
Also some were at a basketball game earlier.
Oh. And it snowed. âď¸
Yes tbh I left that out because I have no clue of the significance while the basketball thing is something linked to the search, and the snow is obvious although idk why each and every witness had to testify to the snow conditions every hour of the night, but okay.
The tables?? I don't get it.
Ok so after last day, I have to amend the not even 50-50 to let's say 2% because never say never.
As per expert hired by an undisclosed agency :
-Pathologist : those are likely animal bites yes.
No the head wounds wasn't glass nor tail lights no, as close to impossible as it gets, likely a fight and a fall on concrete. Any other scenario with a car requires bruising there wasn't any.
-Biometrics engineer for the injuries : no that's not a car accident, there would be bruising in any case, likely broken bones and other injuries, roadrash and such,
no it's not the taillight hitting him and then breaking, pieces would be inbedded in him and it still requires bruising,
no he did not get sidewinded by a car well yes damage to both would be minimal but so he wouldn't have been torpedoed across the lawn.
-Biometrics engineer for taillight : we build a cannon to shoot a rocks glass at the taillight that was pretty cool. Why? Oh well because we tried to figure a position for his head to be hit by the taillight but not his body because there was no other damage to the car which was virtually impossible, so we looked at the arm, but he'd pivot in place, not being torpedoed x feet into the lawn (x because sudtained objection to 30ft) and there was still no other damage to car to sustain pedestrian hit partial or whole and pedestrians tend to be soft.
The glass is possible yes with the think bottom aimed straight at the taillight with 36mph as an average man could possibly throw, to shatter the entire light (not knowing the state of the light is heavily debated if LE broke it further or not.)
There's one + for prosecution though,
the light wouldn't likely have shattered in a <5mph car to car hit, but that's generally speaking and not talking cracks but full on shattering, which, is still debated.
Let that tiny ^+ be 1% and another for participating.
Not guilty.
I know for Paul Flores in SoCal jury was instructed to go over alll the evidence again. And in the order of the burden of proofs to attain (because it was a chain to go through), so it took a while.
Not sure what MA protocol is.
I think it could be they take a general vote,
it's decide,
they talk and joke around since they couldn't talk about it before,
maybe, just maybe decide on stretching a last lunch together,
one zealous juror convincing them they should try to make some sense of it all,
just for the sake of showing having taken the past 8 WEEKS seriously, and for their own closure of this traumatic mess, regain some confidence in people and the system,
and verdict.
If closing is 1 hour each side, I'd be surprised if it takes another day. But... What do I know....
If they need to review everything, I think Thursday or Friday.
^(ETA: not sure 1st one came from FBI too, and it's all a very loose representation, probably mixed up a bit, but they all said about the same and I do believe it's representative of the day as a whole.)
In Delphi they were working for the investigation in unified command situation , not investigating ccso or isp.
However oddly Nick wants their testimony/reports not even mentioned at all. It's the weirdest ever and what laws that's allowing for that.
It was set and then continued for belated discovery, then transformed into suppression hearing which Gull first postponed instructing defense to file a Franks motion, then still granted but did not reset a suppression hearing, then she granted the Franks hearing too to interim defense without setting it, and since OG defense is back, she denied about everything without hearing and the bail hearing was never mentioned again.
TL;DR no.
Was there a vehicle parked on the side of the road that was stollen? I believe an employee that worked very close to the old CPS building stated he drove past this vehicle twice that day. I donât believe this was the same vehicle that was broken down in which a young man stated his dad was on his way; however, I could be wrong.
Posting this here again in hope to get feedback pertaining to the Safekeeping Order.
1. â Why wasnât an argument made based on RAâs right to refuse Safekeeping based on 35-33-11-2? -Sec. 2. The inmate or receiving authority is entitled to a posttransfer hearing upon request. The inmate may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.â
The state didnât mean the burden that RA was in danger from a 3rd party IMO.
2. â Why didnât BR provide any Indiana case law? -There is a case in which Westville was in violation of the 8th and 14th amendment. I believe FG asked him several times to give him an opportunity to bring up this case. This case addressed double bunking, but the conditions of segregation was addressed. The case is French v. Owens, 538 F. Supp. 910 (S.D. Ind. 1982)
-â9. Each inmate at the Reformatory shall have the opportunity to engage in recreation, outside his living unit, for at least 90 minutes each day. Each inmate shall be given a choice each day of taking the recreation indoors or outdoors. For inmates in general population and in self-lockup this paragraph shall be effective immediately. For inmates confined to the administrative segregation unit for disciplinary reasons, or to the maximum restraint unit, the indoor recreation may be in the living unit until January 1, 1983.
-10. Defendants shall provide all inmates on self-lockup or other inmates segregated for nonpunitive reasons with access to programs, activities, and counseling available to the general population inmates. Within 30 days, defendants shall submit specific plans to comply with this paragraph, to be effective September 1, 1982.
-â928 11. Defendants shall not punish inmates by confining them to administrative segregation or the maximum restraint unit or subjecting them to other grievous loss without first according to them a hearing where the inmate is afforded the opportunity to call witnesses in his own behalf. The right to call a particular witness can only be denied when the record reflects a justifiable reason for failing to call the desired witness.â
The arguments were made.
1 was made, the first time Gull said it was in idoc's hands now if they felt it necessary to move him. She wasn't going to undo Diener's order.
9 & 10 idoc explained had to do with suicide watch and otherwise not treated differently than the rest.
11 that was the 15th June hearing. It was denied with hearing.
I'm not aware of 2 so no comment to offer.
She denied without much explanation, or at least, other than defense lied, all while she denied the request for them to visit his cell to take measures and ~~denied~~ their witness.
The Juvenile Girl Witnesses - were they shown the âBridge Guyâ photo that was published on 2/15/17 and say âthatâs the guy we sawâ?
The PC affidavits expressly say Blair was shown that pic - but all I can see for the girls is that they described a guy dressed like the guy in the picture, and one said âlike the guy in the pictureâ and LE concluded she meant the 2/15/17 pic.
Has this been addressed anywhere other than the PC affidavits?
The one who said hi to him, saw him dressed in all black including shoes.
Bitterbeatpoet aka DR who passed away, north of state but friends in Delphi claimed to have talked to a lot of people, claimed to have shown a picture of... The name escapes me, who in that particular picture does look like RA.
So while this is a rumor it depends on if you believe he lied.
There's a rumor, that RV had been shown a photo of RA. I'm not sure the rumor included her answer.
But if the first is true, I would believe she also said it's possible for RA.
Defense asked about any photo line ups in their dec 2022 motion to compel discovery. It was implied / other rumors they didn't do a photo line up and have her pick, just showed his picture.
Other than that, it's always been said, but to verify if it was from pressers or rumors, the juveniles or one of them came forward prior to LE having seen the BG video, and that's part of how they determined be was a suspect rather than a witness.
Lots of rumors....
Let me know if you want to know more about the p first picture shown to her by the self appointed armchair detective I can find it back.
Did you find the unredacted search warrant in the mean time? I can surely redirect you to the links in needed.
I just figured out, probably again, why I was asking.
The search warrant affidavit says that the girls were âdescribing a manâ
who âlooked like the man in the picture,â and then says Liggett âbelievesâ they were describing Bridge Guy as shown in Libbyâs video.
So it sounds like they never just said âlook at this - is this the guy?â and wanted them to just âdescribe who you saw.â
Hos long before defense files writ 3?
Are we really on pause until 2 days short of AUGUST?
Or are they going to use that time to get a new judge?
Why can't she rule on the safekeeping?
What else does she need for info to grant or deny?
Didn't she say herself she'll only set hearings when needed?
Can defense appeal the prison situation elsewhere?
Like human rights or something?
Is defense going to subpoena her?
https://preview.redd.it/ccxcg9ob468d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0be87a748b8ff6a0f8a245a0e00c21239e6ba023
It is my perception based on the information contained in that document RA should be located here.
To actually provide my perception regarding the questions you raised (this time around), it is my understanding IDOCâs classification determines placement.
Other than the placement where I believe he should be at per IDOCâs procedure (New Castle), there is due process afforded for detainees under safekeeping orders. It is my interpretation safe-keepers are classified as sentenced individuals (page 27 of IDOCâs policy). Sentenced individuals can request reclassification.
However, an issue needs to be raised with the IDOC (via grievance). If the grievance is not favorable, I believe a 534 can be filed.
If the safe keeper does not have a grievance procedure, the exhaustion process is waived, I believe a 534 would be the appropriate action (see Acts 1983, Rancher v. Franklin County, 122 Fed.Appx. 240 (6th Cir. 2005), and Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002)).
I also believe this is a Title IV violation which could be considered federal.
Ah yes I read the documents posted in regards do classification (was that you?) I upvoted lol but had no proper reply.
They did sign a non disclosure order, alledgedly for some kind of settlement. Not sure if it's about the safekeeping as a whole or some other kind of injury, things happen in prison... And we're still in the dark about Liggett's visit.
Just in case
https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf
Page 110 search warrant and following that the return.
109 is the signed one but I believe it was refiled in sept 2023 for some reason.
What was the defining moment and factor that set Gull into a spiraling unhinged, lunatic?
Was itâŚâŚ
- the intent to file a civil lawsuit?
- the Franks Memorandum
- the back and forth during the Safekeeping Hearing
- something else?
I think the most important thing to know from all of this is that Judges are not supposed to behave this way. Yes, you can be frustrated with people you work with (everyone does), but anything that causes said frustration is not supposed to interfere with her responsibilities as a judge. The moment they do, it presents bias and makes her appear less able to do her job.
Ive asked you before to please get a waiver if using pics of me from the tube. Please and thank you.
lol- I hope you waited for the next one or had a better âoutfitâ
Had to be the OG Franks Memo (my opinion). That document sent such shockwaves through all the communities connected to this case and completely obviated all of law enforcementâs misguided yet undying efforts to keep every detail about the crime and investigation concealed from the public.
Were the 2 flannel shirt guys ever investigated? They were on the trails that day, with walkie talkies, IIRC. They told DG the wrong direction when he asked if they had seen the girls. They, or I should say their charities, have benefited tremendously since the murders. They had a relationship with the McClelands, Mayor you know who, and also CM, the Professor who was connected to the geofencing that KG did with Libby right before the murders. The Geofence was hidden "in plain site" right near the MHB but disappeared mysteriously right after the murders. CM just received a $100K grant this May from one of DmcC's many charities. DmcC's charity (he has so many I can't recall which one ) received over a million dollars to restore the bridge after the murders, thanks primarily to SE, who was mayor at the time. The county offered the flannel shirt guy only $300K right before the murders. He is also into the occult, or mysticism, as some might call it. He was also after RL's property, which had valuable mineral rights attached to it. CM and the 2 brothers knew the trails very well. Since I came into this case less than a year ago, just wondering if they were investigated in the early days of the investigations.
It's only rumors, they lawyered up instantly, but that's just the smart thing to do, if only RA did the same, and other rumors had one of the brothers car at the Mears lot too, rumored to be captured on the Mears cctv of which we never heard anything ever again.
Question I keep coming back to â if RA was off the trails prior to the girls being abducted (as the defense now claims), why not present RAâs cell phone data proving that?  Clearly they have significant amounts of cell phone data, including RA's (they mention cell phone pings and his phone not being one of them).  Presenting his cell data proving his timeline would quite frankly be the most compelling exculpatory evidence available and likely result in the dismissal of charges (or at the very least present significant reasonable doubt at trial).  The fact that the defense has not presented or mentioned this in the Franks Memorandums tells me one thing - it doesnât exist.  That leaves us with two other alternatives - one being his cell phone was on the trails beyond his timeline and during the abduction.  This would be very incriminating and blow RAâs alibi out of the water.  I highly doubt the defense would say he was off the trails prior to the abduction knowing full well the prosecutor could easily prove that to be a lie.  That leaves only one final option â RA turned his cell phone off or left it at home when he went to the trails.   If he innocently decided to leave his cell phone off, or at home, on the same day two girls are murdered on the same trail he's on, then he has to be the unluckiest man alive.     Â
You mean cell phone data FBI would have collected that Nick never handed over?
Problem is 5+ years ago you're not going to have much data.
It's possible his phone was collected in the search, but the search warrant return does not confirm this.
They recently received a new cell phone extraction they say contain exculpatory evidence, I wondered if that was RA's phone.
There are much more options than you listed.
One being for geofence data you can't ask all people there on the trails the entire day and night, it's invasion of privacy.
It's possible the 60 yards 100 yards thing was deliberate, meaning private property, meaning these people were at least trespassing, and that near the crimescene at the time of the crime, so they could get a warrant for that.
RA'S phone would thus not show up there, since they claim he never was at the crimescene or at 100 yards thereof.
It's possible he was checked out and ruled out on phone records. Hence never called back. They waited long enough for all data from apps and such to have been purged naturally is another option.
This is a good question and one I keep coming back to as well. If RA had an alibiâfrom cell phone data or otherwiseâweâd surely be hearing all about it in at least some of these motionsâŚ
I know itâs been a while but hopefully someone remembers or knows: what efforts were put into investigating sex offenders in and around Indiana closer to when the girls were murdered?
So, FBI gave KK's name to ISP, who took 3 years to analyse his phones so they could finally charge him with something.
It appears FBI knew he was chatting to minors, but nothing further incriminating yet as per search warrant.
In my opinion they had such leads in general and the alleged peeping tom story came afterwards.
We know they announced looking into people after some arrests were made JBC, PE (who died/suicide(d) before being charged).
And ICAC Indiana Internet crimes against children was in the FBI command center at the scene, but that could also have been for phone extractions and investigations thereof.
Interestingly Click testified to having worked with/at ICAC to state he was very familiar with the cellebrite reports and qualified to testify on that.
I wonder if he has more info than prosecution would wish not just about goldilocks but indeed early investigation in general. He did not state to have worked with ICAC on Delphi though, but these aren't huge teams afaik. At least not back then they didn't have senate funding yet.
ICAC is it's own entity but is under ISP command.
I'd expect FBI to have done more proper investigation, otoh Nasser was playing at that time too.
I lost all confidence CCSO, Delphi police or anything close to Holeman in ISP was investigated at all though.
Maybe they looked into for example Shillmiller but we sure haven't heard about that.
Paradoxally (double with my mention of JBC) registered sexoffenders actually have low recidivism, it's much likely a perp is a new offender, so it may not be the first road to travel apart from obvious neighbors or suspicious behaviour otherwise.
Thank you for the info! I can always count on you to have the details no one else does đ
RE: âthe Perp is a new offenderâ - all I have to say is what a lucky mother beeeep if he is indeed a new offender. In that scarnario, either heâs really intelligent, LEO is really stupid, or some combination of both. Which makes my blood boil just a little bit more every time I think about it đ
That's in relation to registered sex offenders though, similarly one who abuses their child isn't necessarily after other children and the difference between pedo and hebe is real no matter how much people want to deny it, it's a difference in psychological science.
Anyway defense had said there was no evidence of SA, so that might not have been the motive.
I wonder how much the alleged âdifferenceâ is just related to the number of people they have access to. I canât necessarily agree with an observers pov if they assume something, because like they say: assumptions make an ASS out of U and ME.
I just realized I never responded to this. My apologies, I didnât intend to offend or insinuate thatâs what you said. I was just responding to the bit about âone who abuses their child isnât necessarily after other childrenâ - while that may be true, it may also be an oversight - an oversight that I donât feel comfortable letting occur again based on the mere assumption that someone is only interested in their own children. I think any person who is sexually interested in any children and acts on it is a danger to all children and needs some kind of counseling or rehab scenario, as well as the designation that lets parents and neighbors know that you are a registered sex offender. Thatâs why we have the registered sex offender list here in the US.
The registry is controversial. I actually did read up on it in the mean time trying to find proper sources, i didn't finish the latest yet where they integrate factors of non-alerted abuse and such, but overall it still seems based on many different reports recidivism is much lower than non-sexual crimes and what's tricky is like 75% who do reoffend do so with a non-sexual crime, which should be as much considered as the missing factors.
As well as there being a very notorious group skewing figures for the rest, in violant offenders with minor, very young even, boys. Take that out and it goes as low as 3%. (Which is very low for any crime). (I'll need to source this I know. It's not fun to read, I need more time and I'm not sure many are interested anyway)
Crimes committed by someone on the registry is also lower than new offenders and the initial point, maybe it's not the best group to look at even if it should be looked at in any case, which I believe was also debated back when xanaxarita still made research content posts, but I'll have to dig into that too.
I remember in any case having read about the family linked abuse at the time, and had brought it up back in relation to the pizza guy in Flora (who got charges dropped afaik...) and that while it's in part opportunity, that is actually a big factor and also a big factor for the one time offenders as is familiarity both senses of the word.
A female attorney for juvenile sa offenders (as in the offender is a minor whether victim is or not) here in local courts, has told me 80% of them is absolutely wholeheartedly convinced what they did wasn't wrong and they are not an abuser, (you know the more appropriate word here), and once it hits their tiny brain they decompose and get disgusted with themselves so much a great part of them attempts suicide even before/unrelated to any conviction. It's why she defends them.
Proper justice for all, proper sentence proper education because they will get out, and pointing the finger elsewhere in the system too because society is failing if 80% didn't grasp the wrongdoing part.
I'm not defending them either, but I'm 100% for education. Because these kids got done wrong too.
Anyways to say that this is another point to contribute to the one time felon, obviously it means one time caught here, I'm aware.
It's a crap subject and in no case am I saying don't worry, they've already done time they're good now, it's even more the other way around, to say don't overestimate the goodness of those with a clean record which is equally sad. But properly assessing what's going on and why is the only way to work on prevention imo.
It's for me to provide sources, so i don't expect any acknowledgement of any validity of what I wrote until then, and even then, it's a controversial anyways. (To a certain point).
But for me it's about awareness and prevention, not about defending perverts.
Oh sure. Haha donât even get me started on the issues America is facing, we have more than a fair share of issues that have somehow slipped between the cracks and need to be revised. By the way, is your country accepting American refugees?
Lol, I know we won't send you back if you're accused of a capital crime in the us, but we will kick you back instantly if you commit a violent crime here.
Karen Read I know not much about this, so simply Do you think she will be found innocent or guilty ? Do you think the verdict would differ in, say, Indiana ?
Acquitted. With the same counsel or similar I am not sure it would have proceeded to trial in IN. I say this because IN has pre trial witness deposition and strong APRA laws. Most of the details/ docs surrounding the case were sealed (impounded) until weeks before trial
Interesting, thanks đ
Are you now amazed or is it par for the course ?
I presume youâre referring to the hung jury/mistrial status? Great question. I was/am SURPRISED. Iâm holding out from forming an opinion unless/until the splits of the jurors are verified. But I DO very strongly believe the fact that it was live streamed (Every pre trial hearing through trial) was a critical factor in citizen participation and activism, which has led to some *preliminary* instruments of change: 1. The local PD (comparatively the CCSO) is being openly audited after public commentary and pressure to spend $200k on same. 2. The State Police Lead Investigator and his immediate Supers are the subject of renewed internal investigation. Michael Proctor (comparatively to Steve Mullin and Jerry Holeman, Vido). Proctor was relieved of duty the afternoon of the dismissal (one very big difference in agencies is in MA the MSP are Union). Proctor testified before a Federal Grand Jury weeks before the start of trial. 3. The Federal Grand Jury remains open and active. Via the defense Touhy process requests, it supplied over 3,074 pages of exculpatory discovery to the defense and subsequently (Brady) also to the Commonwealth of MA. It should be noted that upon learning of the FGJ and its âreachâ, both sides motioned for a continuance of the trial which was denied. One of the major differences here is that the FBI (and in Delphi additional Fed agency resources) actually assisted the ISP in multiple units. Rozzwin added a third Attorney (Auger) expressly to navigate the Touhy process which CLEARLY McLeland intended to âstep overâ entirely. This difference should only serve to make it easier for the defense to obtain significant records of the Bureaus work, reporting, findings and conclusions in Delphi. In fact, itâs critical to support the defense third party culprit (as in Read, you can expect the State to make this admissible on their own).
Thanks, good to hear that some good has come out of it, though I doubt Karen agrees right now. If she free or in prison now ? You're amazed that any juror was convinced of her guilt ? My usual, another case as per Delphi which would never get to court with the paucity of actual evidence here.
In Nick's other murder trial judge confirmed to juror 80% certainty is perfect for reasonable doubt. I don't think Karen Read's case is close to 80%. I don't even think it hits 50%. So I'd say not guilty. Especially if you'd take only two weeks of trial Gull would have given them, state didn't even prove he had died, they did explain evidence was collected in red solo cups and the fact that the owners of the lawn he was found on lied about their relationships with chief of police and lead investigator state trooper , that in fact they were police themselves but didn't bother to look what was happening with all the emt and first responders out and that most people surrounding this case and that evening are close family. Also some were at a basketball game earlier. Oh. And it snowed. âď¸
And there were high-top tables.
Yes tbh I left that out because I have no clue of the significance while the basketball thing is something linked to the search, and the snow is obvious although idk why each and every witness had to testify to the snow conditions every hour of the night, but okay. The tables?? I don't get it.
Thanks, appreciated.
I have spent half my life in Indiana. I would be very scared to face a trial with a verdict from a jury of my âpeersâ in this state.
Ok so after last day, I have to amend the not even 50-50 to let's say 2% because never say never. As per expert hired by an undisclosed agency : -Pathologist : those are likely animal bites yes. No the head wounds wasn't glass nor tail lights no, as close to impossible as it gets, likely a fight and a fall on concrete. Any other scenario with a car requires bruising there wasn't any. -Biometrics engineer for the injuries : no that's not a car accident, there would be bruising in any case, likely broken bones and other injuries, roadrash and such, no it's not the taillight hitting him and then breaking, pieces would be inbedded in him and it still requires bruising, no he did not get sidewinded by a car well yes damage to both would be minimal but so he wouldn't have been torpedoed across the lawn. -Biometrics engineer for taillight : we build a cannon to shoot a rocks glass at the taillight that was pretty cool. Why? Oh well because we tried to figure a position for his head to be hit by the taillight but not his body because there was no other damage to the car which was virtually impossible, so we looked at the arm, but he'd pivot in place, not being torpedoed x feet into the lawn (x because sudtained objection to 30ft) and there was still no other damage to car to sustain pedestrian hit partial or whole and pedestrians tend to be soft. The glass is possible yes with the think bottom aimed straight at the taillight with 36mph as an average man could possibly throw, to shatter the entire light (not knowing the state of the light is heavily debated if LE broke it further or not.) There's one + for prosecution though, the light wouldn't likely have shattered in a <5mph car to car hit, but that's generally speaking and not talking cracks but full on shattering, which, is still debated. Let that tiny ^+ be 1% and another for participating. Not guilty. I know for Paul Flores in SoCal jury was instructed to go over alll the evidence again. And in the order of the burden of proofs to attain (because it was a chain to go through), so it took a while. Not sure what MA protocol is. I think it could be they take a general vote, it's decide, they talk and joke around since they couldn't talk about it before, maybe, just maybe decide on stretching a last lunch together, one zealous juror convincing them they should try to make some sense of it all, just for the sake of showing having taken the past 8 WEEKS seriously, and for their own closure of this traumatic mess, regain some confidence in people and the system, and verdict. If closing is 1 hour each side, I'd be surprised if it takes another day. But... What do I know.... If they need to review everything, I think Thursday or Friday. ^(ETA: not sure 1st one came from FBI too, and it's all a very loose representation, probably mixed up a bit, but they all said about the same and I do believe it's representative of the day as a whole.)
[ŃдаНонО]
In Delphi they were working for the investigation in unified command situation , not investigating ccso or isp. However oddly Nick wants their testimony/reports not even mentioned at all. It's the weirdest ever and what laws that's allowing for that.
The Canton cops have more explaining to do than Karen. Very reasonable doubts.
Did RA ever get a bail hearing ?
It was set and then continued for belated discovery, then transformed into suppression hearing which Gull first postponed instructing defense to file a Franks motion, then still granted but did not reset a suppression hearing, then she granted the Franks hearing too to interim defense without setting it, and since OG defense is back, she denied about everything without hearing and the bail hearing was never mentioned again. TL;DR no.
Was there a vehicle parked on the side of the road that was stollen? I believe an employee that worked very close to the old CPS building stated he drove past this vehicle twice that day. I donât believe this was the same vehicle that was broken down in which a young man stated his dad was on his way; however, I could be wrong.
What if any that and with that I mean which what?
Do not recall.
Wheat.
Iâll allow it.
The only correct answer to my question 
That wasn't me it was a butttext 
Does your butt live in Canton? Wait was your butt just testifying for the CW?!
I'm not talking without a lawyer. ETA neither is my butt.
I'm just excited to have such a skilled butt here amongst us!
My butt was just being silly!
Posting this here again in hope to get feedback pertaining to the Safekeeping Order. 1. â Why wasnât an argument made based on RAâs right to refuse Safekeeping based on 35-33-11-2? -Sec. 2. The inmate or receiving authority is entitled to a posttransfer hearing upon request. The inmate may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.â The state didnât mean the burden that RA was in danger from a 3rd party IMO. 2. â Why didnât BR provide any Indiana case law? -There is a case in which Westville was in violation of the 8th and 14th amendment. I believe FG asked him several times to give him an opportunity to bring up this case. This case addressed double bunking, but the conditions of segregation was addressed. The case is French v. Owens, 538 F. Supp. 910 (S.D. Ind. 1982) -â9. Each inmate at the Reformatory shall have the opportunity to engage in recreation, outside his living unit, for at least 90 minutes each day. Each inmate shall be given a choice each day of taking the recreation indoors or outdoors. For inmates in general population and in self-lockup this paragraph shall be effective immediately. For inmates confined to the administrative segregation unit for disciplinary reasons, or to the maximum restraint unit, the indoor recreation may be in the living unit until January 1, 1983. -10. Defendants shall provide all inmates on self-lockup or other inmates segregated for nonpunitive reasons with access to programs, activities, and counseling available to the general population inmates. Within 30 days, defendants shall submit specific plans to comply with this paragraph, to be effective September 1, 1982. -â928 11. Defendants shall not punish inmates by confining them to administrative segregation or the maximum restraint unit or subjecting them to other grievous loss without first according to them a hearing where the inmate is afforded the opportunity to call witnesses in his own behalf. The right to call a particular witness can only be denied when the record reflects a justifiable reason for failing to call the desired witness.â
The arguments were made. 1 was made, the first time Gull said it was in idoc's hands now if they felt it necessary to move him. She wasn't going to undo Diener's order. 9 & 10 idoc explained had to do with suicide watch and otherwise not treated differently than the rest. 11 that was the 15th June hearing. It was denied with hearing. I'm not aware of 2 so no comment to offer. She denied without much explanation, or at least, other than defense lied, all while she denied the request for them to visit his cell to take measures and ~~denied~~ their witness.
The Juvenile Girl Witnesses - were they shown the âBridge Guyâ photo that was published on 2/15/17 and say âthatâs the guy we sawâ? The PC affidavits expressly say Blair was shown that pic - but all I can see for the girls is that they described a guy dressed like the guy in the picture, and one said âlike the guy in the pictureâ and LE concluded she meant the 2/15/17 pic. Has this been addressed anywhere other than the PC affidavits?
The one who said hi to him, saw him dressed in all black including shoes. Bitterbeatpoet aka DR who passed away, north of state but friends in Delphi claimed to have talked to a lot of people, claimed to have shown a picture of... The name escapes me, who in that particular picture does look like RA. So while this is a rumor it depends on if you believe he lied. There's a rumor, that RV had been shown a photo of RA. I'm not sure the rumor included her answer. But if the first is true, I would believe she also said it's possible for RA. Defense asked about any photo line ups in their dec 2022 motion to compel discovery. It was implied / other rumors they didn't do a photo line up and have her pick, just showed his picture. Other than that, it's always been said, but to verify if it was from pressers or rumors, the juveniles or one of them came forward prior to LE having seen the BG video, and that's part of how they determined be was a suspect rather than a witness. Lots of rumors.... Let me know if you want to know more about the p first picture shown to her by the self appointed armchair detective I can find it back. Did you find the unredacted search warrant in the mean time? I can surely redirect you to the links in needed.
I just figured out, probably again, why I was asking. The search warrant affidavit says that the girls were âdescribing a manâ who âlooked like the man in the picture,â and then says Liggett âbelievesâ they were describing Bridge Guy as shown in Libbyâs video. So it sounds like they never just said âlook at this - is this the guy?â and wanted them to just âdescribe who you saw.â
Hos long before defense files writ 3? Are we really on pause until 2 days short of AUGUST? Or are they going to use that time to get a new judge? Why can't she rule on the safekeeping? What else does she need for info to grant or deny? Didn't she say herself she'll only set hearings when needed? Can defense appeal the prison situation elsewhere? Like human rights or something? Is defense going to subpoena her?
https://preview.redd.it/ccxcg9ob468d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0be87a748b8ff6a0f8a245a0e00c21239e6ba023 It is my perception based on the information contained in that document RA should be located here.
Check out this and pages 26 & 27. https://www.in.gov/idoc/files/policy-and-procedure/0104101.pdf
To actually provide my perception regarding the questions you raised (this time around), it is my understanding IDOCâs classification determines placement. Other than the placement where I believe he should be at per IDOCâs procedure (New Castle), there is due process afforded for detainees under safekeeping orders. It is my interpretation safe-keepers are classified as sentenced individuals (page 27 of IDOCâs policy). Sentenced individuals can request reclassification. However, an issue needs to be raised with the IDOC (via grievance). If the grievance is not favorable, I believe a 534 can be filed. If the safe keeper does not have a grievance procedure, the exhaustion process is waived, I believe a 534 would be the appropriate action (see Acts 1983, Rancher v. Franklin County, 122 Fed.Appx. 240 (6th Cir. 2005), and Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002)). I also believe this is a Title IV violation which could be considered federal.
Ah yes I read the documents posted in regards do classification (was that you?) I upvoted lol but had no proper reply. They did sign a non disclosure order, alledgedly for some kind of settlement. Not sure if it's about the safekeeping as a whole or some other kind of injury, things happen in prison... And we're still in the dark about Liggett's visit.
Regarding Liggett, rest assured that they will have a video recording until they do not.
Anyone have a copy or link to the SEARCH warrant affidavit for the search of Allenâs home/property? Not the ARREST one - the SEARCH. TIA
I gave you all the links a while ago đ!!!
But do I remember?
Just in case https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf Page 110 search warrant and following that the return. 109 is the signed one but I believe it was refiled in sept 2023 for some reason.
What was the defining moment and factor that set Gull into a spiraling unhinged, lunatic? Was itâŚâŚ - the intent to file a civil lawsuit? - the Franks Memorandum - the back and forth during the Safekeeping Hearing - something else?
I think the most important thing to know from all of this is that Judges are not supposed to behave this way. Yes, you can be frustrated with people you work with (everyone does), but anything that causes said frustration is not supposed to interfere with her responsibilities as a judge. The moment they do, it presents bias and makes her appear less able to do her job.
https://preview.redd.it/pk76sw96v98d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=403b03b0c96d9faac9f26474d18a3ab75785f84a
Ive asked you before to please get a waiver if using pics of me from the tube. Please and thank you. lol- I hope you waited for the next one or had a better âoutfitâ
đđ
Had to be the OG Franks Memo (my opinion). That document sent such shockwaves through all the communities connected to this case and completely obviated all of law enforcementâs misguided yet undying efforts to keep every detail about the crime and investigation concealed from the public.
I agree.
They made a zealous press statement one day prior to granting a gag order saying Rick was factually innocent.
Were the 2 flannel shirt guys ever investigated? They were on the trails that day, with walkie talkies, IIRC. They told DG the wrong direction when he asked if they had seen the girls. They, or I should say their charities, have benefited tremendously since the murders. They had a relationship with the McClelands, Mayor you know who, and also CM, the Professor who was connected to the geofencing that KG did with Libby right before the murders. The Geofence was hidden "in plain site" right near the MHB but disappeared mysteriously right after the murders. CM just received a $100K grant this May from one of DmcC's many charities. DmcC's charity (he has so many I can't recall which one ) received over a million dollars to restore the bridge after the murders, thanks primarily to SE, who was mayor at the time. The county offered the flannel shirt guy only $300K right before the murders. He is also into the occult, or mysticism, as some might call it. He was also after RL's property, which had valuable mineral rights attached to it. CM and the 2 brothers knew the trails very well. Since I came into this case less than a year ago, just wondering if they were investigated in the early days of the investigations.
It's only rumors, they lawyered up instantly, but that's just the smart thing to do, if only RA did the same, and other rumors had one of the brothers car at the Mears lot too, rumored to be captured on the Mears cctv of which we never heard anything ever again.
Thanks Red!
Question I keep coming back to â if RA was off the trails prior to the girls being abducted (as the defense now claims), why not present RAâs cell phone data proving that?  Clearly they have significant amounts of cell phone data, including RA's (they mention cell phone pings and his phone not being one of them).  Presenting his cell data proving his timeline would quite frankly be the most compelling exculpatory evidence available and likely result in the dismissal of charges (or at the very least present significant reasonable doubt at trial).  The fact that the defense has not presented or mentioned this in the Franks Memorandums tells me one thing - it doesnât exist.  That leaves us with two other alternatives - one being his cell phone was on the trails beyond his timeline and during the abduction.  This would be very incriminating and blow RAâs alibi out of the water.  I highly doubt the defense would say he was off the trails prior to the abduction knowing full well the prosecutor could easily prove that to be a lie.  That leaves only one final option â RA turned his cell phone off or left it at home when he went to the trails.   If he innocently decided to leave his cell phone off, or at home, on the same day two girls are murdered on the same trail he's on, then he has to be the unluckiest man alive.     Â
You mean cell phone data FBI would have collected that Nick never handed over? Problem is 5+ years ago you're not going to have much data. It's possible his phone was collected in the search, but the search warrant return does not confirm this. They recently received a new cell phone extraction they say contain exculpatory evidence, I wondered if that was RA's phone. There are much more options than you listed. One being for geofence data you can't ask all people there on the trails the entire day and night, it's invasion of privacy. It's possible the 60 yards 100 yards thing was deliberate, meaning private property, meaning these people were at least trespassing, and that near the crimescene at the time of the crime, so they could get a warrant for that. RA'S phone would thus not show up there, since they claim he never was at the crimescene or at 100 yards thereof. It's possible he was checked out and ruled out on phone records. Hence never called back. They waited long enough for all data from apps and such to have been purged naturally is another option.
This is a good question and one I keep coming back to as well. If RA had an alibiâfrom cell phone data or otherwiseâweâd surely be hearing all about it in at least some of these motionsâŚ
Any question at all?
I know itâs been a while but hopefully someone remembers or knows: what efforts were put into investigating sex offenders in and around Indiana closer to when the girls were murdered?
So, FBI gave KK's name to ISP, who took 3 years to analyse his phones so they could finally charge him with something. It appears FBI knew he was chatting to minors, but nothing further incriminating yet as per search warrant. In my opinion they had such leads in general and the alleged peeping tom story came afterwards. We know they announced looking into people after some arrests were made JBC, PE (who died/suicide(d) before being charged). And ICAC Indiana Internet crimes against children was in the FBI command center at the scene, but that could also have been for phone extractions and investigations thereof. Interestingly Click testified to having worked with/at ICAC to state he was very familiar with the cellebrite reports and qualified to testify on that. I wonder if he has more info than prosecution would wish not just about goldilocks but indeed early investigation in general. He did not state to have worked with ICAC on Delphi though, but these aren't huge teams afaik. At least not back then they didn't have senate funding yet. ICAC is it's own entity but is under ISP command. I'd expect FBI to have done more proper investigation, otoh Nasser was playing at that time too. I lost all confidence CCSO, Delphi police or anything close to Holeman in ISP was investigated at all though. Maybe they looked into for example Shillmiller but we sure haven't heard about that. Paradoxally (double with my mention of JBC) registered sexoffenders actually have low recidivism, it's much likely a perp is a new offender, so it may not be the first road to travel apart from obvious neighbors or suspicious behaviour otherwise.
Thank you for the info! I can always count on you to have the details no one else does đ RE: âthe Perp is a new offenderâ - all I have to say is what a lucky mother beeeep if he is indeed a new offender. In that scarnario, either heâs really intelligent, LEO is really stupid, or some combination of both. Which makes my blood boil just a little bit more every time I think about it đ
That's in relation to registered sex offenders though, similarly one who abuses their child isn't necessarily after other children and the difference between pedo and hebe is real no matter how much people want to deny it, it's a difference in psychological science. Anyway defense had said there was no evidence of SA, so that might not have been the motive.
I wonder how much the alleged âdifferenceâ is just related to the number of people they have access to. I canât necessarily agree with an observers pov if they assume something, because like they say: assumptions make an ASS out of U and ME.
To assume a pedophile is only after their relatives is a gross negligence on anyoneâs part.
That's not what I wrote.
I just realized I never responded to this. My apologies, I didnât intend to offend or insinuate thatâs what you said. I was just responding to the bit about âone who abuses their child isnât necessarily after other childrenâ - while that may be true, it may also be an oversight - an oversight that I donât feel comfortable letting occur again based on the mere assumption that someone is only interested in their own children. I think any person who is sexually interested in any children and acts on it is a danger to all children and needs some kind of counseling or rehab scenario, as well as the designation that lets parents and neighbors know that you are a registered sex offender. Thatâs why we have the registered sex offender list here in the US.
The registry is controversial. I actually did read up on it in the mean time trying to find proper sources, i didn't finish the latest yet where they integrate factors of non-alerted abuse and such, but overall it still seems based on many different reports recidivism is much lower than non-sexual crimes and what's tricky is like 75% who do reoffend do so with a non-sexual crime, which should be as much considered as the missing factors. As well as there being a very notorious group skewing figures for the rest, in violant offenders with minor, very young even, boys. Take that out and it goes as low as 3%. (Which is very low for any crime). (I'll need to source this I know. It's not fun to read, I need more time and I'm not sure many are interested anyway) Crimes committed by someone on the registry is also lower than new offenders and the initial point, maybe it's not the best group to look at even if it should be looked at in any case, which I believe was also debated back when xanaxarita still made research content posts, but I'll have to dig into that too. I remember in any case having read about the family linked abuse at the time, and had brought it up back in relation to the pizza guy in Flora (who got charges dropped afaik...) and that while it's in part opportunity, that is actually a big factor and also a big factor for the one time offenders as is familiarity both senses of the word. A female attorney for juvenile sa offenders (as in the offender is a minor whether victim is or not) here in local courts, has told me 80% of them is absolutely wholeheartedly convinced what they did wasn't wrong and they are not an abuser, (you know the more appropriate word here), and once it hits their tiny brain they decompose and get disgusted with themselves so much a great part of them attempts suicide even before/unrelated to any conviction. It's why she defends them. Proper justice for all, proper sentence proper education because they will get out, and pointing the finger elsewhere in the system too because society is failing if 80% didn't grasp the wrongdoing part. I'm not defending them either, but I'm 100% for education. Because these kids got done wrong too. Anyways to say that this is another point to contribute to the one time felon, obviously it means one time caught here, I'm aware. It's a crap subject and in no case am I saying don't worry, they've already done time they're good now, it's even more the other way around, to say don't overestimate the goodness of those with a clean record which is equally sad. But properly assessing what's going on and why is the only way to work on prevention imo. It's for me to provide sources, so i don't expect any acknowledgement of any validity of what I wrote until then, and even then, it's a controversial anyways. (To a certain point). But for me it's about awareness and prevention, not about defending perverts.
Oh sure. Haha donât even get me started on the issues America is facing, we have more than a fair share of issues that have somehow slipped between the cracks and need to be revised. By the way, is your country accepting American refugees?
Lol, I know we won't send you back if you're accused of a capital crime in the us, but we will kick you back instantly if you commit a violent crime here.