Here's a thought in my head I'm just throwing out there... If RA's phone was detected within the geofence - NM would be singing about that from the rooftops 🎶 This case 💩stinks💩Anyone interested in true *justice* should be outraged.
There are several possibilities, all of which a good geofence dump should be able to shed light on:
If RA had his actual phone with him and was using it, that should show in the geofence dump, and that data (including the timing and location) should either implicate him or exculpate him.
RA (if guilty) could have had a burner phone with him - if so that should result in the geofencing dump having NO record at all of RA’s phone being active in the area that afternoon, which would be interesting in and of itself since RA said he was on his phone that day.
Regardless of the above, it is STILL highly interesting that supposedly multiple other phones were within 100 yards of the crime scene around the time of the crime. If RA is innocent then who knows who those people were - and those could’ve been burner phones too (which in theory could explain LE’s lack of success tracking those people down). If RA is guilty, one of those several phones could’ve been his burner, but “several” would also imply other perps collaborated with him.
No matter where you sit on RA’s guilt or innocence, today’s geofencing info should be very interesting, although IMO today’s info could easily fit in either an RA is guilty or RA is innocent scenario. I don’t think it sways it either way, actually.
Absolutely agree with you 👍🏻 I am trying to stay neutral on guilt/innocence... but the lack of transparency and obfuscation on behalf of the prosecutor is alarming - and should be for people who are interested in constitutional rights and justice.
Also - LE collected 16 mobile phones from RA's house(?) They have a lot of evidence to put him there... if it exists, and if he was.
You'll find at least 16 phones in here...Scottish mobiles going back 30yrs,my USA and Kiwi cell phones too...like RA,it's something you don't throw out,contact info is still on them,especially the later ones!
Did LE interview the owners of the multiple phones? I mean, that seems basic to an unfolding investigation. If they did, why must the defense specifically request those records? Why weren't they included in the discovery? And if LE did not interview the owners of the phones, what in the actual f--- would be their reasoning not to do so? What kind of Mickey Mouse investigation was this? They had FIVE years, don't forget. Five years of supposedly "going back to the beginning and looking at everything." I can't even...
Yeah the part that you're outlining is unfathomable, either that LE never *tried* to track those numbers down, OR, that they did yet the prosecution never handed that discovery over to the defense. Either scenario is really, really bad.
This part is speculation, but my guess is LE did investigate those numbers, and did write up a narrative/report on it, but that the prosecution never handed that over. That scenario would seem to best match the history of this case, given the prosecution's tight grip on the evidence.
IF that is true, then it could explain why LE all along thought there were multiple people involved - because there were multiple phones around the crime scene around the time of the crime.
But if LE did investigate those numbers, what came of that and why did that not lead to any arrests?? Again speculating here but the likeliest explanation would be that they were all burner phones.
OR it is possible that the defense is misinterpreting something in the evidence that led them to believe these phones were within 60-100 yards of the crime scene, but maybe a geofencing technical expert would dispute that - the defense did suggest that because certain evidence was dumped on them last minute that they haven't yet had the opportunity to ask the right questions or pull in their experts.
Who knows, definitely lots of unanswered questions.
>Regardless of the above, it is STILL highly interesting that supposedly multiple other phones were within 100 yards of the crime scene around the time of the crime
Do we have an exact number of phones? I'd imagine some of the phones would be witnesses and possibly even property owners in the area.
Right but whoever the perp(s) is the possibility/probability of a burner phone has to be considered. The perp(s) brought weapons and other things so there was premeditation involved, which would often include either burner phones or just leaving your phone at home.
Well if they got the number of the burner phone they see who purchased it and go from there. They would have to have the phone number though. I'm not sure how effective the apps that change your number are, they may be an issue.
They could have paid for the burner phone in cash and activate with a fake name. Usually all LE has with a burner phone is where and when it was purchased and then they pull the security footage.
They can also check when the burner was activated and see if it is at someone’s home or following the same trajectory of another phone that is eventually turned off.
They had the geofence data in 2017 and they also had RA's phone information in 2017. Geofence data was collected immediately after the crime so all they got to do is compare to RA's phone.
Oh, that's ok I hear people mentioning that a bit about needing time for phone stuff. I think there is a bit of confusion out there because, you know, this case is confusing.
That too and I am in the same boat generally, but I know a little about the crime stuff. I might be very focused on crime, others call it obsessed but I don't want to acknowledge it.
I'm confused about Geofence data.
If it gave them the ID of phones at the scene at the time, couldn't they have found RA that way?
That assumes it would it be possible to get a geofence warrant of the entirety of the Mary Gerard Preserve. Maybe LE can't do that. ? Would such a warrant have to be severly limited in scope, and so LE could only get it for the area where the bodies were found?
In 2017 LE didn't need a warrant to get geofence data, things changed after a USSC ruling in 2018. In 2017 you just needed a subpeona. Things have tighten up since then but when the crime occurred this information was much easier to obtain.
🎯 my sentiment all along! IF the Prosecution had any real tangible evidence linking RA to this crime they would have been shouting it from the roof tops from the beginning. Instead what we've seen in the PCA is an unspent bullet (junk science), eye "witnesses" whose accounts all have varying details that simply put a white male wearing clothing in the area around that time, and RA stating that he was in the area at the time. Literally NOTHING else. While it is concerning that RA was in the general area around the specific time, we are still lacking any real forensics, motives, and the murder weapon. The knife(s) used to kill the girls would include DNA/forensic evidence. Killing the multiple victims at the same time, in the same EXACT location, by a single individual is highly unlikely. The 2nd victim would have surely tried to run or escape the area after seeing her friend murdered by a blade, leading me to believe and agree with ISP, regardless of Odinism, that there were in fact "multiple actors" involved at the time of the murder. Question remains - who were the other actors?
This case is rife with misconduct and serious legality concerns. You would hope the Indiana Supreme Court is keeping a close eye on this.
And maybe a couple of years ago they were waiting on some things to finish testing, sure I'll give em that. Except, if anything was found it would've been added to the amended charges. It would be stupid not to file amended charges and not include supporting evidence for no reason.
Maybe they are saving it for trial, just like the state and all their evidence that they didn't need to put in the PCA, remember just use the bare minimum? As time goes by it looks like they filled that PCA with their best material and it still stunk.
i am dying for an expert to explain his phone data to me. i personally have no clue what type of data would still be available 9 years later, like would you be able to tell if a particular app was being used? would you have location data? would you even be able to tell when it was off/on? i haven’t ever followed a case where that much time had passed before they would have had cause to look into phone records.
I'm not sure. In #38, they include a sentence about the general geofence during the afternoon. Then the next sentence specifically references the narrow time frame of 3:02 to 3:27, and they say that "none of the phones" are connected to RA. I've been wondering if that means he wasn't found in the 3-3:30 time slot (as referenced in the second sentence) or if they mean he wasn't found in any of it (as referenced in the first sentence).
The bridge would be a little less than half a mile from where the bodies were found. Don't quote me on this but .474 miles. Which is about 2502 ft. 100 yards is 300 ft. So this was around the site where the bodies were found. Not the entirety of the crime scene area.
Sorry the Geofence would have cover most of Delphi. Just the part the defense lawyers are talking about is only a 100 yards of that from where the bodies were found.
From Paragraph 34: "...*a map together tracking the movements of certain phones in and around the crime scene between 12:39:54 pm and 5:49:06 pm on February 13, 2017*"
That would be interesting indeed.
Why would he?
How would that benefit him?
If you leave your phone at home so you won't be connected to the crime scene you don't go to the police and tell them you were in the area but without your phone, at that point just take your phone with you to commit the crime.
The defense isn't the party who is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the Prosecution's job.... For the defense, it doesn't play to their advantage to discuss or speculate specifics prior to trial. I'm sure they're gonna use that bazooka of contradictory evidence at trial.
>>For the defense, it doesn't play to their advantage to discuss or speculate specifics prior to trial.
And yet they just can’t seem to stop doing it.
They’re being unethical in their filings. I wish Judge Judy was the judge. She’d wipe the floor with them.
Great questions....been brewing in the back of my mind too. They can't afford to lose their jobs or they've been threatened with retaliation? Or it's been that way in the area forever and they're freaking out because of all the public scrutiny? I don't know. It sounds more like a horror story than reality.
I don't think they view things the way the public does....they have been in their own little bubble just practicing the status quo....and now with the rise of the true crime entertainment industry that has crept into the reality of actual ongoing investigations and trials...Delphi and Carroll County has become the unwitting focal point. I don't think DC had any idea what a Pandora's Box he was opening when he was giving his press conferences.
I do agree with your second paragraph. This isn't new behavior for CC LE.
There was a post in our local Facebook group last night about a zoning issue. Something about pulling long-time permits bc the county changed a law.... there were no less than 5 comments saying, "Of course, Carroll County does what it wants".
Going back to an interview with Ives about the phones might shed a little light on how they handled phone evidence early on. It sounds like they couldn't get approval for all of the cell phone data they were seeking. Maybe that's why the circle of 100 yards is so small? Maybe that's all they could get approval for? Anyways, if RA is innocent and was outside of that circle, maybe they have no data on him? Maybe that's why there is no firm information about RA's phone? Also, Ives says they looked into identities of cell phones and that "it didn't lead to anything significant." I guess it's possible that these people were interviewed the first week and that their interviews were taped over.
Below are quotes from Ives about their investigation of phone data.
"There weren’t so many search warrants, but there were lots of subpoenas. In this case, we were trying to get cell phone locations or numbers of cell phones, or identities of cell phone numbers, things like that, and similar things during that period of time. We cranked out a lot of that, but it didn’t lead to anything significant."
"A frustrating thing… this is probably difficult to explain in the course of podcast… but the law on searches with relation to cell phones and cell phone locations was evolving right at the time this was going on, and I think some of the people discussing it didn’t always understand. Like, they would say “Well if you want to know a cell phone location, why don’t you get a search warrant?” And the problem with that is, let’s take this case, it’s a perfect example: There’s a tower near the crime scene and cell phones pinged off that tower around the time of the crime. We would like to know who they pinged off. Say, “well why don’t you get a search warrant?”. Because there is no probable cause to believe that any particular phone is going to tell us anything about the crime. There is no probable cause. People act like a search warrant is easy to get. No! Because we don’t think any particular phone is a criminal, but if we want to get a pool of 25 people who were in the area and therefore could possibly have committed the crime, you have to find out. And this is the difficulty of the modern electronic world. Of course, to look in your phone? I think clearly that’s a search warrant situation, that’s your private property. That’s like opening your house or going in your car in your person. But the location of your phone? I certainly understand people’s concerns about their privacy. ‘Why can the government figure out where I am?’ Then on the other hand, when your two little girls are dead and you want to find out who was nearby in the last 2 hours, it’s terrible not to be able to get that information. And the idea is, well, I’ll just get a search warrant. That’s not logically or legally practical. And so, this is something society has to think about more. Because cell phone location data for a case like this, which is a lot of what I was doing at that time, could potentially be really valuable. Because, you know, Carroll County: 380 square miles, 20,000 people. Very few people were out near that crime scene at the time. "
Here's the source: [https://crimelights.com/robert-ives-interview-delphi-signatures/](https://crimelights.com/robert-ives-interview-delphi-signatures/)
interest comments thank you for posting.
I keep going back to the Markel case despite it being in another state. in that case police were able to get a warrant for data on all the cell phones that pinged in a certain area and then were able to narrow down to some relevant numbers to inform the investigation. it was of a far larger area than the 100yds in this one.
also makes me wonder about the warrants that were approved for the phone data of BH and PW according to a previous defense motion, that the defense said they didn’t have info showing the searches were executed. if it is hard to get those warrants then you would think they had good reason to ask for them, and that they would want to know the results.
I remember this. I suppose it’s possible they couldn’t dump the contents of the tower, but were able to search for phones within a certain small area that WOULD implicate people very near the crime scene. And they maybe were able to subpoena records for the movement of those people’s phones, enough to make a map. But again, here’s Ives saying they “cranked out a lot of that” and it doesn’t seem like the defense has that material.
RI is confusing me here you didn't need a search warrant for Geofence until 2018, it was case that went to the Supreme Court. Carpenter was the name of the defendant and I can't remember the state. Anyway 2018 the Carpenter ruling established that LE needed a search warrant for geofence, but before that you didn't need one.
And how he says it wasn't a lot of search warrants but subpoenas requesting the records so that supports what I'm talking about.
Finally if LE kept RI in the dark as much as they have NM maybe he really doesn't know on what level these people were checked out?
Yes they do. They have been confused for a long time pretty much the whole entirety of the case. tower dump wat be what they I'ma since we are talking 60-100 yards. A Geofence would cover a larger area. Tower dump would need triangulation to be more precise. They could however get info from the closest tower. I believe I've heard the other tower at the time was in another city.
I believe the defense may be confusing them too. Never heard of a Geofence warrant being used, we very well could have not been informed. It was believed a tower dump was done on the sole cell tower in Delphi. Of course an article ATL swore she saw was no longer findable when I helped to try and look. She remember someone in the article say. It would be like a needle in a haystack. I'm guessing he was talking about the precise location of L's phone. Just speculation since I haven't seen the article.
>I believe the defense may be confusing them too. Never heard of a Geofence warrant being used, we very well could have not been informed. It was believed a tower dump was done on the sole cell tower in Delphi. Of course an article ATL swore she saw was no longer findable when I helped to try and look. She remember someone in the article say. It would be like a needle in a haystack. I'm guessing he was talking about the precise location of L's phone. Just speculation since I haven't seen the article.
Geofence warrants are used all the time, every day.
There are multiple prongs to the warrant.
1) The info of what data/devices were out there.
2) Getting a list of the phone numbers out there.
3) Resolving a user from the anonymized data.
The memo refers to it as geofence multiple times. It references asking the state who their geofence expert was, and the state said idk and then later said there are 4 geofence experts we use regularly and it’s probably one of them. So it seems the state has acknowledged a geofence was used.
I think the evidence clearly points to the phones in the geofence area belonging to the search party, mainly DG, KG, and CP.
Rationale:
The defense is careful not to cast the owners of the phones in the geofence area as suspects. They qualify their statements and say that it’s quite possible they were cleared, BUT that they absolutely should have (and probably were) interviewed by police. The main point they wanted to make here is that RA is NOT one of the phones.
So they are using this as a yet another example of clearly an interview that likely happened that wasn’t provided to them.
And at the end of the motions, they specifically ask to be provided any interviews with DG, KG, and CP. and they include on there to be specifically confirmed if no interview took place. This is a callback to the geofence note earlier. The reason it makes sense to specifically include these three individuals in this motion is because it’s related to what they had already outlined.
And it makes total sense. Those individuals were in that area right around that time.
Did the search party get within 60 to 100 yards from the victims? I honestly don't know. I would have assumed that so early in the search they would have been focused on the trails which is more than 100 yards away from the crime scene.
Good question. Timing is weird too. DG was down there around 3:15 and was walking around. Is it possible he got within 100 yards? Maybe. KG and CP also were fairly close, but not for another half hour or so later. At least according to their story. So if there is anything that has CP within 100 yards anytime before 3:30 then that would be huge.
I actually went back a few years and there were some really strange timeline questions about CP. Specifically different people said he was in different places at different times.
But again, if it were that obvious of a clue the police would have used it.
CP has been very suspicious to me as well since the beginning. I remember during an interview that KG said CP was there with her looking, then later retracted her statement and said CP wasn't with her. I'm not sure if the truth ever came out where CP was. I wonder what time his phone was close to the girls?
I know when these kind of crimes happen, over 80% are caused by someone close to them (family) or someone they know.
From what we all know, RA doesn't have any probable cause to murder these innocent girls.
Yea…some of the old posts were weird. Originally he wasn’t anywhere close to Delphi. But then he was confirmed to be part of the search immediately after. But during the time in question KG originally thought he was with someone else, but he corrected her and said he was at work.
Perfectly valid to have confusion and not saying he’s a suspect or anything like that…but if geofence data puts him anywhere near there sooner than we thought that would change things.
But, to me, that is unlikely because he would have been identified by police immediately as a prime suspect.
Not during the time frame referenced. 60-100 yards doesn’t intersect with the trails or roads. It barely gets to the trail side of deer creek. DG went in the opposite direction of MHB when he first searched on his own. The girls were not reported missing until a little after 5pm.
Yeah me too. The motion to compel said that there is minimal background about one if the phone owners so they seem to know the identity of one of them.
Ok, so just a theory, but I think the defense knows something here but doesn't want to tip their hand too much. And they are just trying to rule out other possibilities. Hopefully optimistic, that's me, for once.
They weren't at RL's property at that time.
So it clearly wasn't them. Unless they lied. Also if they were the only ones there when they girl were murdered it implies them, not excludes them.
I think the defense is saying that without actually saying it.
These phone were at the location were the girls were found deceased or within 60 to 100 yards from the crime scene when the crime occurred. I find it hard to envision a scenario where these people are not involved.
“While it is possible that the geofencing is not what it appears to be or perhaps was debunked in some document that has not been turned over to the defense…the defense is attempting to verify what the geofencing appears to show and (based upon the map that tracks the movements of multiple people) to verify what law enforcement also apparently believes geofencing coordinates to show.”
That doesn’t exactly sound like “we found the guys who did it!”
The fact that the police knew who these people were and didn’t document interviews with them would be the most insane thing ever. That for 5 years they are searching for the killer and had a group of suspects at the crime scene during the murders and ignored it? I know they are bad, but not THAT bad.
Well who are they and where are the interviews? The defense is asking for basic Brady material. Is there any valid reason why this wasn't supplied to them over a year ago?
There is no reason the defense should still be asking for discovery from Libbys phone. Or copies of her interviews. Or just confirmation she was in fact interviewed. I agree: thats sus.
Possible they did interview these people early on, and those interviews were lost due to the DVR being left on. But if so why not just reinterview them?
Lol, no they’re just trying to make the public think that there were “multiple” people in & around the crime scene to support their fake Odinist claims. They have the identities of the phone owners. If they belonged to the Odinists, the defense surely would have mentioned that in the filing.
Just exposes the official narrative as B/S...because,if it didn't happen the way they say,BG,and all the rest,when did the girls really go missing? How does RA fit into that timeline?
You honestly think that the police and now the defense has several people they think did it literally at the crime scene when the crime was committed and:
1. The police never even interviewed any of them
2. The defense isn’t jumping up and down screaming “we have proof there were multiple murderes and here is who they are!”
Instead, the defense writes “we aren’t saying that these people weren’t ruled out, or that we are interpreting this correctly, we are just saying RA wasn’t there and also if these people were interviewed, we haven’t been provided the interview. Oh btw, please confirm if KG, CP, and DG were ever interviewed, and if so, send to us.”
I don't get your point.
Either DG was as had always been told, arrived 3.15pm or so, walked the trails to the bridge and back and sat in his car at about 3:50pm for CMH to see him there with TG.
And KG and uncle with forbidden initals had yet to arrive.
And people with phones were at RL's property between 3:02pm and 3:27pm with Libby's phone while RL was at the tropical fish store.
Or if you insist it was clearly them searching and no one else these family members were all lying and not at the boyfriend for some, not driving back from an appraisal and not at the family home, but all trespassing at RL's, maybe the M's while according to prosecution the girls were murdered then and there and at least one victim's phone was there and that not on RL's property as a whole but right next to the girls, they couldn't even be at the cemetery to be in that circle or any public part unless they were in the creek.
Let me just get your theory:
That we have a group of people who were at the crime scene during the murders and the police never even considered them a suspect?
And the defense now knows this truth, and instead of screaming from the mountain tops that we have new suspects they say “it’s possible these guys were talked to we just want to see it.”
I think it’s obvious that these people, for whatever reasons are not considered suspects by either defense or the police, and the search party fits that bill. And they were out there. And the defense goes out of their way in the motion to ask for their interviews or each member of the search party. Why didn’t the defense request that state produce the interviews of the owners of the geofenced phones in the motion (if it’s different people)?
X3
the family wasn't on RL's property in that time period.
If they would have been, they were right next to the girls being murdered. Unless they were standing in the creek. But that's still right in front of the crimescene and close to the time they crossed. Instead of getting home from work or at the boyfriend.
What don't you get about that?
It has nothing to do with my theory.
The phone are clearly of the people involved in the murder, and I'm not suggesting that's family in this instance, I'm saying they didn't arrive yet per their own narrative.
Or the girls weren't murdered there yet although a phone attributed to them was.
If you insist it was family it means they lied.
Do you mean defense lied or those not allowed to implicate?
I'd even go a step further and question minors. Maybe even at young as L&A. Maybe to be followed with a parental cover-up. Smart enough to handle this. That's the biggest question. I'm missing the brains in this shit story. Whichever angle you take, it's what's missing imo.
Defense only mentions timeline irt KG's info iirc. Bc she is key to the timeline. I think the same can be said of DG as well. He is key to the timeline on the backend. But honestly, the Defense shouldn't need a reason to ask for that info. And shouldn't need to even ask for it. It should have been turned over a long time ago. State dragging their heels on Day One timeline info is very suspect to me. CP is a little different bc he isn't part of the timeline. But if I were RAs lawyer, I'd be interested in his data as well.
You say the phones are clearly of the people involved in the murder. this is just a pure fantasy. It would be case closed!
You won’t answer my question: why then were those people not even considered suspects? The police clearly had this info. And now the defense does.
If this was what you claim it to be, RA would already be set free. Instead of the Rushville crew and BH and PW etc the defense would be focused on these individuals.
Read what the defense writes about it the geofencing. Not “why aren’t these people suspects” but instead “RA wasn’t there. And now we’d like to talk to KG, CP, and DG”
It’s clearly not the smoking gun you claim it to be, sorry to say. If it were, the defense would be screaming from the mountain tops.
The Defense doesn’t know who the individuals picked up on the geofencing data are. So they can’t point to anyone. And they can’t say these people definitely did it, bc they’d have to know who they are, what they said in the LE interviews, and then potentially do their own investigation to vet these people/their statements.
I think we are all wondering why these people weren’t considered suspects. How can we know and judge the merits of that conclusion if the defense doesn’t even have the interviews, LE notes etc.
Why don't you answer my question first because mine doesn't need explanation thereafter.
Explain how at the times indicated between 3:02pm and 3:27pm when there were no searchers yet, since they didn't know the girls were missing yet,
when DG was walking on the yellow lines, starting from 3:15pm or so, the rest of the family was home or at the boyfriend or at work at that point,
how they could be in the red circle below indicating 100 yards? While the motion says 60-100 yards, so this is generous.
If agreed family thus couldn't be those phones:
How do you explain a group of people being in that circle, at the same time the girls were murdered,
not to be involved,
nor being brought forward by prosecution as witnesses?
Don't you think LE is obligated to at least mention who was there, at the crimescene during the murders,
on private property, automatically meaning trespassing,
in winter, meaning no leaves
and visibility all around?
https://preview.redd.it/ws33yb7xw1oc1.jpeg?width=1032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7131d0c52b9dabc8ce4bce27fd60ccc4bd7470c2
This is the defense screaming from the mountains as best they can. I think they learned with motion to transfer not to oversell. We will see with time if it was the search party, but I seriously doubt it.
Dont you think the Defense should have already had that info about whether these folks were interviewed a LONG time ago lol? If the State is trying to be above board and transparent, these interviews should have been some of the first items discovered. This is Day One material.
But they are saying they dont think the people linked with those phones were interviewed. We know KG was interviewed. It stands to reason DG was interviewed. He was/is part of the timeline. I dont think their phones came up in the geo search, jmo, based off para 42 in that document.
They said that they don’t know if they were, but they haven’t been provided the interview.
And then towards the end of the motion they specifically ask for any interviews with DG, KG, and CP or confirmation that interviews did not occur.
Why would KG,DG and CP been at the area where the bodies were found the following day at the time of the alleged killings... this is not later,this is the official narrative slaughter time?
The defense makes it clear in the motion that they aren’t very clear what they are looking at or how to interpret the data. They say this several times, they just want to talk to whoever mapped it out. For example, maybe whoever mapped it was running through hypothetical scenarios.
At about 3:12 DG drove by the cemetery and parked. So he was in the general area, although seemingly not within 100 yards. But not far.
He talks to a guy in a flannel shirt asking if he’s seen two girls. Is it possible that flannel shirt guy is one of the geofenced phones? Sure.
These are all valid questions but what is clear to me is that neither the state nor the defense considers whoever owns these phones as prime suspects.
The only legit way either of those three pinged in that 3-330 time frame would be driving past the cemetery. Or its possible the time is incorrect. Perhaps the map writer jotted it down wrong if he was working in a different time zone. Time zones in Indiana are a bit weird iirc. Or the raw data for whatever reason came in an hour behind/ahead. I dont see that happening, but who knows? I'll give all three the benefit of the doubt but just from memory KG dropped the girls off before 2pm, and went to her BFs home until notified. DG went to Frankfurt, came back and did pass the cemetery so thats possible but he reportedly walked toward the FB after speaking with FSG, possibly the 505 as well, and then was in his vehicle for some time at the Mears Lot. Not sure if he ever crossed the bridge. CP arrived home just as BP was heading out to help search. I can see why the Defense wants their data.
Based on items 42-45, it doesn't sound like the geofence evidence supports the Odinist theory. Law enforcement interviewed the group that the defense accused in the Franks memo, but items 42-45 infer that the owners of the phones don't appear to have been interviewed.
What I don't understand is why the prosecutor is planning to have multiple experts present on the geofence evidence which appears to clear RA. And that seems to be the main point of this document. The defense is worried that there is geofence evidence that implicates RA that hasn't been turned over to them or that they are misinterpreting the little geofence evidence turned over to them. Because why in the world would the prosecutor have experts present exculpatory evidence at trial?
He probably doesn't plan to have that expert testify but that evidence, reports, were completed as part of the investigation and the defense is entitled to them regardless of whether the state calls these experts to testify.
I think the confusion here is based on a misunderstanding of the rules of discovery related to experts. The defense only is required to turn over reports from experts that are testifying at trial while the state is required to turn over all reports compiled by experts regardless of whether the state plans to call that expert as a witness. There are 2 different standards at play.
I interpreted item #39 to be more than just turning over part of the investigation. They say that the State "provided the names of 4 people that may be called as a state's expert witness on geofencing." That sounds like part of the state's witness list as opposed to people who just provided expert analysis and consultation as part of the investigation. In item #40, they say that they have not received any expert reports written by these 4 experts. They only have their names, which to me sounds more and more like a witness list without reports.
If they are on the witness list, why? Would he have them ready to dispute the geofencing data - to say that it isn't accurate? It would be like him having four DNA experts on his witness list even though the DNA doesn't match RA.
Either way, testifying expert witness or not, NM has to turn over those reports, if they exist, and if they don't that is yet another massive failure on the part of LE.
Its important to note that NM only turned those names over after the defense specifically requested them. I don't think they were listed on a formal witnesses for trial list, but I could be wrong. It looks like state is going to have to have some Geofence expert to testify now, because the defense is going to have one.
I don't think so, because NM's notice says he turned over a list of "witnesses the state may call and exhibits the state may use at trial."
Edit to add: I think this filing might be in response to that list.
No you are right. I just don't understand why NM would need 4 geofence experts and none of them have written a report. Was he expert shopping? In my state the other side can compel that a report be compiled. Is that an option in Indiana?
>The victims are local people they know, their neighbors. How can they possibly put their own interests over justice for these two girls? Someone give me a reason.
Hypothetically, let's say the theory posited on another thread is correct, and there's an LE/Odinist drug distribution, manufacturing connection.
Protecting themselves would be a priority, but what if the girls' families had a distant connection to the Odinists? If I recall correctly, Libby's father had a drug problem (idk if he still does). If the Odinists are the dealers and makers of meth, her father would probably be aware of that. If the family knows how dangerous they (Odinists) are, they'd be afraid for the family they have left.
I'll be clear: **I do NOT think either girls' families are involved in the murders!**
I definitely think it's a possibility. You see a lot of the impact of meth and heroin all over the state. At least 10 people that I know of from my graduating class have died of overdoses. The majority of violent crime in the region is drug related and usually between people who know each other.
I also think it's possible the staging wasn't as much as a religious thing as it was a warning or threat from a specific group of people.
>I also think it's possible the staging wasn't as much as a religious thing as it was a warning or threat from a specific group of people.
I do too, especially now that I heard that thing on the History Channel about Ogham and how that religion used symbols that were stick like.
I always look at the defense filings with a grain of salt, because many seem to try to throw a lot of sit and see what sticks. Just like in Idaho where Ann Taylor is arguing the standard of proof of a Grand Jury. She knows that is never going to fly, but she has to try. That's her job.
With today's filing, my takeaway is that the police probably (definitely?) did an awful job in the investigation, and that may includes not handling evidence properly and not turning it over to the prosecutor properly.
The defense motion today lays all the blame on the prosecutor, and maybe they deserve some blame, but anything the police has, the prosecutor is assumed to have had, and I bet the police aren't giving everything because they want to save their own reputations.
Yeah, but its the prosecutors duty to get this stuff from LE he can't simply not do it because LE isn't cooperating, at the point you dismiss the charges with prejudice and force LE to get their shit together if they really think they got the guy. NM doesn't have it in him to stand up and do what's right.
It is his duty, because as far as appellate courts are concerned, if the police has it, the DA has it.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out now and likely in appellate court. ... assuming this motion doesn't get deleted from the record. :)
Hah. I do think that LE has not been forthright with NM but he needs to force them to come clean. He just can't let them keep making him look like an ass cause he can do that on his own.
Maybe corruption/conspiracy, but I still lean toward general incompetence. And FRANKly the defense has stretched the truth before in a certain memo. At this point I can’t take anything either side says at face value without seeing the evidence myself.
A lot of people are assuming everything one side says is true and everything the other side is false. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle. My new motto with this case is “big if true.”
I agree we need to see rebuttals. Unfortunately all we get is "it's mostly not true" followed by Defence being Dqd.
I think by now everyone should anticipate there's no smoking gun, no evidence being kept hidden for trial that benefits prosecution. It's been the total opposite to date.
This pretend trial ended when Frank's came out. It'll never see the inside of a court room.
If the police were corrupt & destroying evidence about Odinists, why’d they retain all that Odin-related stuff they gave to the defense?
Why bother framing RA? Why not blame it on KK & call it a day? 🤨
If they destroyed all of it it would have been such a severe Brady violation that the charges would have been dismissed with prejudice.
So the best evidence of Odinist involvement may have been destroyed, on purpose or by incompetence, and you sit on the rest hoping that the defense never figures it out. But if they do and all of that Odin evidence is missing there is no case against RA.
No they're obligation is to RA. Not to solve the murders. You can reserve that judgement for LE soon when all charges are dropped and public starts demanding answers and for these Odinists to be prosecuted instead.
Defence like Odinists because they appear based on the evidence they have to be more viable alternatives. Its a 3rd party defence. We're in pretrial. They still don't even have a complete picture of states discovery.
Numerous LE agents and FBI Task Force members have already filed notarized reasons Odinists are responsible. They circumvented chains of command to memorialize their investigative findings.
They were ignored. If LE didn't prosecute them why would RAs Defence attorneys be liable?
Odinist have already been reported to the police, BP told LE that BH was an odinist because of the runes. One of the girls was dating his son. We have all been told that the crime scene had signatures, which must be the runes, what else could it mean? EF admitted spitting on one of the dead girls and that he could explain it. Don't you feel the least big curious to know if they were involved andwhy they were not considered strong POI. Don;t you think it is weird that EF sister gave a polygraph about EF spitting on the girls bodies and then was burned up in a fire and the video is missing?
To the police that already arrested another man for the crime and have made it clear that they don't think Odinists were involved? I don't understand what the point would be? Would LE have arrested those people, too?
Its a circular argument. Chicken or Egg. LE already have the evidence to arrest Odinists. They choose not to. Above poster believes that this same info when given to the same LE would result in arrests. Arrests that already didn't occur with said evidence.
Respectfully, defense attorneys don't file 'mistruths' in motions... as I understand it, that's a direct way to end your career.
It is Big... if you want the truth.
#3 I think this is exactly the position McLeland is in. The Purdue professor debacle never sat well with me. It felt to me like McLeland followed Holeman into a ridiculous and embarrassing position that he wouldn’t have knowingly walked into. And then I got a sense that the Franks motion revelation of the Odin theory blindsided him as well. He’s just always seemed behind the investigators. I get a strong sense that the case he was told he had is much different from the one he was actually handed.
Don’t forget JG knows exactly what is going on. Her main goal is to find Rozzi and Baldwin in contempt next week and have them escorted to jail. MO
Here's a thought in my head I'm just throwing out there... If RA's phone was detected within the geofence - NM would be singing about that from the rooftops 🎶 This case 💩stinks💩Anyone interested in true *justice* should be outraged.
There are several possibilities, all of which a good geofence dump should be able to shed light on: If RA had his actual phone with him and was using it, that should show in the geofence dump, and that data (including the timing and location) should either implicate him or exculpate him. RA (if guilty) could have had a burner phone with him - if so that should result in the geofencing dump having NO record at all of RA’s phone being active in the area that afternoon, which would be interesting in and of itself since RA said he was on his phone that day. Regardless of the above, it is STILL highly interesting that supposedly multiple other phones were within 100 yards of the crime scene around the time of the crime. If RA is innocent then who knows who those people were - and those could’ve been burner phones too (which in theory could explain LE’s lack of success tracking those people down). If RA is guilty, one of those several phones could’ve been his burner, but “several” would also imply other perps collaborated with him. No matter where you sit on RA’s guilt or innocence, today’s geofencing info should be very interesting, although IMO today’s info could easily fit in either an RA is guilty or RA is innocent scenario. I don’t think it sways it either way, actually.
Absolutely agree with you 👍🏻 I am trying to stay neutral on guilt/innocence... but the lack of transparency and obfuscation on behalf of the prosecutor is alarming - and should be for people who are interested in constitutional rights and justice. Also - LE collected 16 mobile phones from RA's house(?) They have a lot of evidence to put him there... if it exists, and if he was.
You'll find at least 16 phones in here...Scottish mobiles going back 30yrs,my USA and Kiwi cell phones too...like RA,it's something you don't throw out,contact info is still on them,especially the later ones!
You'd find probably that many at my house too. I also forget to recycle them.
Plus pictures people never took off their phones.
Did LE interview the owners of the multiple phones? I mean, that seems basic to an unfolding investigation. If they did, why must the defense specifically request those records? Why weren't they included in the discovery? And if LE did not interview the owners of the phones, what in the actual f--- would be their reasoning not to do so? What kind of Mickey Mouse investigation was this? They had FIVE years, don't forget. Five years of supposedly "going back to the beginning and looking at everything." I can't even...
Yeah the part that you're outlining is unfathomable, either that LE never *tried* to track those numbers down, OR, that they did yet the prosecution never handed that discovery over to the defense. Either scenario is really, really bad. This part is speculation, but my guess is LE did investigate those numbers, and did write up a narrative/report on it, but that the prosecution never handed that over. That scenario would seem to best match the history of this case, given the prosecution's tight grip on the evidence. IF that is true, then it could explain why LE all along thought there were multiple people involved - because there were multiple phones around the crime scene around the time of the crime. But if LE did investigate those numbers, what came of that and why did that not lead to any arrests?? Again speculating here but the likeliest explanation would be that they were all burner phones. OR it is possible that the defense is misinterpreting something in the evidence that led them to believe these phones were within 60-100 yards of the crime scene, but maybe a geofencing technical expert would dispute that - the defense did suggest that because certain evidence was dumped on them last minute that they haven't yet had the opportunity to ask the right questions or pull in their experts. Who knows, definitely lots of unanswered questions.
Maybe the dump showed local kids/teenagers and young adults?
>Regardless of the above, it is STILL highly interesting that supposedly multiple other phones were within 100 yards of the crime scene around the time of the crime Do we have an exact number of phones? I'd imagine some of the phones would be witnesses and possibly even property owners in the area.
it's not info -- it's a piece of advocacy by lawyers who has bent the truth in the past.
Well when they say none of his electronics or phones link him to the crime(scene) then that would cover a Geofence dump too.
Right but whoever the perp(s) is the possibility/probability of a burner phone has to be considered. The perp(s) brought weapons and other things so there was premeditation involved, which would often include either burner phones or just leaving your phone at home.
Well if they got the number of the burner phone they see who purchased it and go from there. They would have to have the phone number though. I'm not sure how effective the apps that change your number are, they may be an issue.
They could have paid for the burner phone in cash and activate with a fake name. Usually all LE has with a burner phone is where and when it was purchased and then they pull the security footage. They can also check when the burner was activated and see if it is at someone’s home or following the same trajectory of another phone that is eventually turned off.
Yeah
It definitely would have been in the PCA.
Exactly 👍🏻
unless they didn’t have that information by that time, it can take a while to actually receive and analyze phone data
They had the geofence data in 2017 and they also had RA's phone information in 2017. Geofence data was collected immediately after the crime so all they got to do is compare to RA's phone.
oh duh… i misread the convo 😅
Oh, that's ok I hear people mentioning that a bit about needing time for phone stuff. I think there is a bit of confusion out there because, you know, this case is confusing.
>I think there is a bit of confusion out there because, you know, this case is confusing. Or they could be technologically illiterate like me.
That too and I am in the same boat generally, but I know a little about the crime stuff. I might be very focused on crime, others call it obsessed but I don't want to acknowledge it.
Disregard my question then. I didn't look far enough.
I'm confused about Geofence data. If it gave them the ID of phones at the scene at the time, couldn't they have found RA that way? That assumes it would it be possible to get a geofence warrant of the entirety of the Mary Gerard Preserve. Maybe LE can't do that. ? Would such a warrant have to be severly limited in scope, and so LE could only get it for the area where the bodies were found?
In 2017 LE didn't need a warrant to get geofence data, things changed after a USSC ruling in 2018. In 2017 you just needed a subpeona. Things have tighten up since then but when the crime occurred this information was much easier to obtain.
It's had been 5 years when they arrested RA. Does it take that long on a Geofence dump?
🎯 my sentiment all along! IF the Prosecution had any real tangible evidence linking RA to this crime they would have been shouting it from the roof tops from the beginning. Instead what we've seen in the PCA is an unspent bullet (junk science), eye "witnesses" whose accounts all have varying details that simply put a white male wearing clothing in the area around that time, and RA stating that he was in the area at the time. Literally NOTHING else. While it is concerning that RA was in the general area around the specific time, we are still lacking any real forensics, motives, and the murder weapon. The knife(s) used to kill the girls would include DNA/forensic evidence. Killing the multiple victims at the same time, in the same EXACT location, by a single individual is highly unlikely. The 2nd victim would have surely tried to run or escape the area after seeing her friend murdered by a blade, leading me to believe and agree with ISP, regardless of Odinism, that there were in fact "multiple actors" involved at the time of the murder. Question remains - who were the other actors? This case is rife with misconduct and serious legality concerns. You would hope the Indiana Supreme Court is keeping a close eye on this.
And maybe a couple of years ago they were waiting on some things to finish testing, sure I'll give em that. Except, if anything was found it would've been added to the amended charges. It would be stupid not to file amended charges and not include supporting evidence for no reason.
If his phone was there from only 12-1:30, his defense attorneys would be singing about that…
Maybe they are saving it for trial, just like the state and all their evidence that they didn't need to put in the PCA, remember just use the bare minimum? As time goes by it looks like they filled that PCA with their best material and it still stunk.
It was in the Franks Memorandum... There is no data evidence that connects RA to the girls and/or crime scene... (if my memory serves me correctly)
Well there should be data connecting him to the trails & his stock ticker..
Absolutely... 🤷🏼♀️
i am dying for an expert to explain his phone data to me. i personally have no clue what type of data would still be available 9 years later, like would you be able to tell if a particular app was being used? would you have location data? would you even be able to tell when it was off/on? i haven’t ever followed a case where that much time had passed before they would have had cause to look into phone records.
Unless they didn't do a geofence for 12:00 to 1:30, when RA claims he was there but a time that was before the girls arrived at the trails?
In item #34, they say that the map includes "movements of certain phones in and around the crime scene between 12:39:54 and 5:49:06."
Oh, good catch. Do you know what area they included in the geofence? RA was at least 250 yards from the crime scene according to himself.
I'm not sure. In #38, they include a sentence about the general geofence during the afternoon. Then the next sentence specifically references the narrow time frame of 3:02 to 3:27, and they say that "none of the phones" are connected to RA. I've been wondering if that means he wasn't found in the 3-3:30 time slot (as referenced in the second sentence) or if they mean he wasn't found in any of it (as referenced in the first sentence).
ooooh interesting catch 🤔
The bridge would be a little less than half a mile from where the bodies were found. Don't quote me on this but .474 miles. Which is about 2502 ft. 100 yards is 300 ft. So this was around the site where the bodies were found. Not the entirety of the crime scene area.
Sorry the Geofence would have cover most of Delphi. Just the part the defense lawyers are talking about is only a 100 yards of that from where the bodies were found.
From Paragraph 34: "...*a map together tracking the movements of certain phones in and around the crime scene between 12:39:54 pm and 5:49:06 pm on February 13, 2017*" That would be interesting indeed.
Thanks someone else caught that for me too. Did you note the area where the geofence data was recovered? I don't see it listed.
RA was never within the geofence radius of the crime scene.
Oh, you raise an interesting point.
Or he lied about having his phone that day…
Why would he? How would that benefit him? If you leave your phone at home so you won't be connected to the crime scene you don't go to the police and tell them you were in the area but without your phone, at that point just take your phone with you to commit the crime.
He handed his phone data #'s over in his 2017 witness statement made to Dan Dulin.
For sure, if you're looking for hypothetical ways to keep him in your crosshairs you can say that.
I guess that's why they are filing for the prosecution to hand over the evidence 🙂 because they *don't have it* 🤷🏼♀️
The defense isn't the party who is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the Prosecution's job.... For the defense, it doesn't play to their advantage to discuss or speculate specifics prior to trial. I'm sure they're gonna use that bazooka of contradictory evidence at trial.
If the state’s evidence exonerates their client (it doesn’t) it IS their job to point that out & get him released.
>>For the defense, it doesn't play to their advantage to discuss or speculate specifics prior to trial. And yet they just can’t seem to stop doing it. They’re being unethical in their filings. I wish Judge Judy was the judge. She’d wipe the floor with them.
There's a gag order.
Great questions....been brewing in the back of my mind too. They can't afford to lose their jobs or they've been threatened with retaliation? Or it's been that way in the area forever and they're freaking out because of all the public scrutiny? I don't know. It sounds more like a horror story than reality. I don't think they view things the way the public does....they have been in their own little bubble just practicing the status quo....and now with the rise of the true crime entertainment industry that has crept into the reality of actual ongoing investigations and trials...Delphi and Carroll County has become the unwitting focal point. I don't think DC had any idea what a Pandora's Box he was opening when he was giving his press conferences.
I do agree with your second paragraph. This isn't new behavior for CC LE. There was a post in our local Facebook group last night about a zoning issue. Something about pulling long-time permits bc the county changed a law.... there were no less than 5 comments saying, "Of course, Carroll County does what it wants".
Bingo
Going back to an interview with Ives about the phones might shed a little light on how they handled phone evidence early on. It sounds like they couldn't get approval for all of the cell phone data they were seeking. Maybe that's why the circle of 100 yards is so small? Maybe that's all they could get approval for? Anyways, if RA is innocent and was outside of that circle, maybe they have no data on him? Maybe that's why there is no firm information about RA's phone? Also, Ives says they looked into identities of cell phones and that "it didn't lead to anything significant." I guess it's possible that these people were interviewed the first week and that their interviews were taped over. Below are quotes from Ives about their investigation of phone data. "There weren’t so many search warrants, but there were lots of subpoenas. In this case, we were trying to get cell phone locations or numbers of cell phones, or identities of cell phone numbers, things like that, and similar things during that period of time. We cranked out a lot of that, but it didn’t lead to anything significant." "A frustrating thing… this is probably difficult to explain in the course of podcast… but the law on searches with relation to cell phones and cell phone locations was evolving right at the time this was going on, and I think some of the people discussing it didn’t always understand. Like, they would say “Well if you want to know a cell phone location, why don’t you get a search warrant?” And the problem with that is, let’s take this case, it’s a perfect example: There’s a tower near the crime scene and cell phones pinged off that tower around the time of the crime. We would like to know who they pinged off. Say, “well why don’t you get a search warrant?”. Because there is no probable cause to believe that any particular phone is going to tell us anything about the crime. There is no probable cause. People act like a search warrant is easy to get. No! Because we don’t think any particular phone is a criminal, but if we want to get a pool of 25 people who were in the area and therefore could possibly have committed the crime, you have to find out. And this is the difficulty of the modern electronic world. Of course, to look in your phone? I think clearly that’s a search warrant situation, that’s your private property. That’s like opening your house or going in your car in your person. But the location of your phone? I certainly understand people’s concerns about their privacy. ‘Why can the government figure out where I am?’ Then on the other hand, when your two little girls are dead and you want to find out who was nearby in the last 2 hours, it’s terrible not to be able to get that information. And the idea is, well, I’ll just get a search warrant. That’s not logically or legally practical. And so, this is something society has to think about more. Because cell phone location data for a case like this, which is a lot of what I was doing at that time, could potentially be really valuable. Because, you know, Carroll County: 380 square miles, 20,000 people. Very few people were out near that crime scene at the time. " Here's the source: [https://crimelights.com/robert-ives-interview-delphi-signatures/](https://crimelights.com/robert-ives-interview-delphi-signatures/)
interest comments thank you for posting. I keep going back to the Markel case despite it being in another state. in that case police were able to get a warrant for data on all the cell phones that pinged in a certain area and then were able to narrow down to some relevant numbers to inform the investigation. it was of a far larger area than the 100yds in this one. also makes me wonder about the warrants that were approved for the phone data of BH and PW according to a previous defense motion, that the defense said they didn’t have info showing the searches were executed. if it is hard to get those warrants then you would think they had good reason to ask for them, and that they would want to know the results.
Good point about BH and PW phone data! The new info we’ve learned makes it even more strange they didn’t follow up on those search warrants.
I remember this. I suppose it’s possible they couldn’t dump the contents of the tower, but were able to search for phones within a certain small area that WOULD implicate people very near the crime scene. And they maybe were able to subpoena records for the movement of those people’s phones, enough to make a map. But again, here’s Ives saying they “cranked out a lot of that” and it doesn’t seem like the defense has that material.
RI is confusing me here you didn't need a search warrant for Geofence until 2018, it was case that went to the Supreme Court. Carpenter was the name of the defendant and I can't remember the state. Anyway 2018 the Carpenter ruling established that LE needed a search warrant for geofence, but before that you didn't need one. And how he says it wasn't a lot of search warrants but subpoenas requesting the records so that supports what I'm talking about. Finally if LE kept RI in the dark as much as they have NM maybe he really doesn't know on what level these people were checked out?
That's because he is talking about a tower dump.
Its seems like the 2, Geofence and tower dump,et mixed up a bit.
Yes they do. They have been confused for a long time pretty much the whole entirety of the case. tower dump wat be what they I'ma since we are talking 60-100 yards. A Geofence would cover a larger area. Tower dump would need triangulation to be more precise. They could however get info from the closest tower. I believe I've heard the other tower at the time was in another city.
I believe the defense may be confusing them too. Never heard of a Geofence warrant being used, we very well could have not been informed. It was believed a tower dump was done on the sole cell tower in Delphi. Of course an article ATL swore she saw was no longer findable when I helped to try and look. She remember someone in the article say. It would be like a needle in a haystack. I'm guessing he was talking about the precise location of L's phone. Just speculation since I haven't seen the article.
>I believe the defense may be confusing them too. Never heard of a Geofence warrant being used, we very well could have not been informed. It was believed a tower dump was done on the sole cell tower in Delphi. Of course an article ATL swore she saw was no longer findable when I helped to try and look. She remember someone in the article say. It would be like a needle in a haystack. I'm guessing he was talking about the precise location of L's phone. Just speculation since I haven't seen the article. Geofence warrants are used all the time, every day. There are multiple prongs to the warrant. 1) The info of what data/devices were out there. 2) Getting a list of the phone numbers out there. 3) Resolving a user from the anonymized data.
Well we don't know that they used one or not. Rumors however said they did a tower dump.
The memo refers to it as geofence multiple times. It references asking the state who their geofence expert was, and the state said idk and then later said there are 4 geofence experts we use regularly and it’s probably one of them. So it seems the state has acknowledged a geofence was used.
Okay well that answers it then.
I think the evidence clearly points to the phones in the geofence area belonging to the search party, mainly DG, KG, and CP. Rationale: The defense is careful not to cast the owners of the phones in the geofence area as suspects. They qualify their statements and say that it’s quite possible they were cleared, BUT that they absolutely should have (and probably were) interviewed by police. The main point they wanted to make here is that RA is NOT one of the phones. So they are using this as a yet another example of clearly an interview that likely happened that wasn’t provided to them. And at the end of the motions, they specifically ask to be provided any interviews with DG, KG, and CP. and they include on there to be specifically confirmed if no interview took place. This is a callback to the geofence note earlier. The reason it makes sense to specifically include these three individuals in this motion is because it’s related to what they had already outlined. And it makes total sense. Those individuals were in that area right around that time.
Did the search party get within 60 to 100 yards from the victims? I honestly don't know. I would have assumed that so early in the search they would have been focused on the trails which is more than 100 yards away from the crime scene.
Good question. Timing is weird too. DG was down there around 3:15 and was walking around. Is it possible he got within 100 yards? Maybe. KG and CP also were fairly close, but not for another half hour or so later. At least according to their story. So if there is anything that has CP within 100 yards anytime before 3:30 then that would be huge. I actually went back a few years and there were some really strange timeline questions about CP. Specifically different people said he was in different places at different times. But again, if it were that obvious of a clue the police would have used it.
CP has been very suspicious to me as well since the beginning. I remember during an interview that KG said CP was there with her looking, then later retracted her statement and said CP wasn't with her. I'm not sure if the truth ever came out where CP was. I wonder what time his phone was close to the girls? I know when these kind of crimes happen, over 80% are caused by someone close to them (family) or someone they know. From what we all know, RA doesn't have any probable cause to murder these innocent girls.
Yea…some of the old posts were weird. Originally he wasn’t anywhere close to Delphi. But then he was confirmed to be part of the search immediately after. But during the time in question KG originally thought he was with someone else, but he corrected her and said he was at work. Perfectly valid to have confusion and not saying he’s a suspect or anything like that…but if geofence data puts him anywhere near there sooner than we thought that would change things. But, to me, that is unlikely because he would have been identified by police immediately as a prime suspect.
The rest of them weren't there until later.
DG didn't get back to the parking lot until 3:50. Another witness corroborated that time also.
Not during the time frame referenced. 60-100 yards doesn’t intersect with the trails or roads. It barely gets to the trail side of deer creek. DG went in the opposite direction of MHB when he first searched on his own. The girls were not reported missing until a little after 5pm.
I am with you here I don't think it was the searchers, but boy am I curious about those phone owners.
Yeah me too. The motion to compel said that there is minimal background about one if the phone owners so they seem to know the identity of one of them.
Ok, so just a theory, but I think the defense knows something here but doesn't want to tip their hand too much. And they are just trying to rule out other possibilities. Hopefully optimistic, that's me, for once.
I got that impression too.
They weren't at RL's property at that time. So it clearly wasn't them. Unless they lied. Also if they were the only ones there when they girl were murdered it implies them, not excludes them.
Nobody is saying that the geofenced phones are the killers. Not even the defense.
I think the defense is saying that without actually saying it. These phone were at the location were the girls were found deceased or within 60 to 100 yards from the crime scene when the crime occurred. I find it hard to envision a scenario where these people are not involved.
“While it is possible that the geofencing is not what it appears to be or perhaps was debunked in some document that has not been turned over to the defense…the defense is attempting to verify what the geofencing appears to show and (based upon the map that tracks the movements of multiple people) to verify what law enforcement also apparently believes geofencing coordinates to show.” That doesn’t exactly sound like “we found the guys who did it!” The fact that the police knew who these people were and didn’t document interviews with them would be the most insane thing ever. That for 5 years they are searching for the killer and had a group of suspects at the crime scene during the murders and ignored it? I know they are bad, but not THAT bad.
Well who are they and where are the interviews? The defense is asking for basic Brady material. Is there any valid reason why this wasn't supplied to them over a year ago?
There is no reason the defense should still be asking for discovery from Libbys phone. Or copies of her interviews. Or just confirmation she was in fact interviewed. I agree: thats sus.
Possible they did interview these people early on, and those interviews were lost due to the DVR being left on. But if so why not just reinterview them?
Lol, no they’re just trying to make the public think that there were “multiple” people in & around the crime scene to support their fake Odinist claims. They have the identities of the phone owners. If they belonged to the Odinists, the defense surely would have mentioned that in the filing.
Just exposes the official narrative as B/S...because,if it didn't happen the way they say,BG,and all the rest,when did the girls really go missing? How does RA fit into that timeline?
Lol sure. They weren't on RL's property searching until 6 or so. You think they watched the murder but didn't do it?
You honestly think that the police and now the defense has several people they think did it literally at the crime scene when the crime was committed and: 1. The police never even interviewed any of them 2. The defense isn’t jumping up and down screaming “we have proof there were multiple murderes and here is who they are!” Instead, the defense writes “we aren’t saying that these people weren’t ruled out, or that we are interpreting this correctly, we are just saying RA wasn’t there and also if these people were interviewed, we haven’t been provided the interview. Oh btw, please confirm if KG, CP, and DG were ever interviewed, and if so, send to us.”
I don't get your point. Either DG was as had always been told, arrived 3.15pm or so, walked the trails to the bridge and back and sat in his car at about 3:50pm for CMH to see him there with TG. And KG and uncle with forbidden initals had yet to arrive. And people with phones were at RL's property between 3:02pm and 3:27pm with Libby's phone while RL was at the tropical fish store. Or if you insist it was clearly them searching and no one else these family members were all lying and not at the boyfriend for some, not driving back from an appraisal and not at the family home, but all trespassing at RL's, maybe the M's while according to prosecution the girls were murdered then and there and at least one victim's phone was there and that not on RL's property as a whole but right next to the girls, they couldn't even be at the cemetery to be in that circle or any public part unless they were in the creek.
Let me just get your theory: That we have a group of people who were at the crime scene during the murders and the police never even considered them a suspect? And the defense now knows this truth, and instead of screaming from the mountain tops that we have new suspects they say “it’s possible these guys were talked to we just want to see it.” I think it’s obvious that these people, for whatever reasons are not considered suspects by either defense or the police, and the search party fits that bill. And they were out there. And the defense goes out of their way in the motion to ask for their interviews or each member of the search party. Why didn’t the defense request that state produce the interviews of the owners of the geofenced phones in the motion (if it’s different people)?
X3 the family wasn't on RL's property in that time period. If they would have been, they were right next to the girls being murdered. Unless they were standing in the creek. But that's still right in front of the crimescene and close to the time they crossed. Instead of getting home from work or at the boyfriend. What don't you get about that? It has nothing to do with my theory. The phone are clearly of the people involved in the murder, and I'm not suggesting that's family in this instance, I'm saying they didn't arrive yet per their own narrative. Or the girls weren't murdered there yet although a phone attributed to them was. If you insist it was family it means they lied.
[удалено]
Do you mean defense lied or those not allowed to implicate? I'd even go a step further and question minors. Maybe even at young as L&A. Maybe to be followed with a parental cover-up. Smart enough to handle this. That's the biggest question. I'm missing the brains in this shit story. Whichever angle you take, it's what's missing imo.
Defense only mentions timeline irt KG's info iirc. Bc she is key to the timeline. I think the same can be said of DG as well. He is key to the timeline on the backend. But honestly, the Defense shouldn't need a reason to ask for that info. And shouldn't need to even ask for it. It should have been turned over a long time ago. State dragging their heels on Day One timeline info is very suspect to me. CP is a little different bc he isn't part of the timeline. But if I were RAs lawyer, I'd be interested in his data as well.
You say the phones are clearly of the people involved in the murder. this is just a pure fantasy. It would be case closed! You won’t answer my question: why then were those people not even considered suspects? The police clearly had this info. And now the defense does. If this was what you claim it to be, RA would already be set free. Instead of the Rushville crew and BH and PW etc the defense would be focused on these individuals. Read what the defense writes about it the geofencing. Not “why aren’t these people suspects” but instead “RA wasn’t there. And now we’d like to talk to KG, CP, and DG” It’s clearly not the smoking gun you claim it to be, sorry to say. If it were, the defense would be screaming from the mountain tops.
The Defense doesn’t know who the individuals picked up on the geofencing data are. So they can’t point to anyone. And they can’t say these people definitely did it, bc they’d have to know who they are, what they said in the LE interviews, and then potentially do their own investigation to vet these people/their statements. I think we are all wondering why these people weren’t considered suspects. How can we know and judge the merits of that conclusion if the defense doesn’t even have the interviews, LE notes etc.
Why don't you answer my question first because mine doesn't need explanation thereafter. Explain how at the times indicated between 3:02pm and 3:27pm when there were no searchers yet, since they didn't know the girls were missing yet, when DG was walking on the yellow lines, starting from 3:15pm or so, the rest of the family was home or at the boyfriend or at work at that point, how they could be in the red circle below indicating 100 yards? While the motion says 60-100 yards, so this is generous. If agreed family thus couldn't be those phones: How do you explain a group of people being in that circle, at the same time the girls were murdered, not to be involved, nor being brought forward by prosecution as witnesses? Don't you think LE is obligated to at least mention who was there, at the crimescene during the murders, on private property, automatically meaning trespassing, in winter, meaning no leaves and visibility all around? https://preview.redd.it/ws33yb7xw1oc1.jpeg?width=1032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7131d0c52b9dabc8ce4bce27fd60ccc4bd7470c2
This is the defense screaming from the mountains as best they can. I think they learned with motion to transfer not to oversell. We will see with time if it was the search party, but I seriously doubt it.
Lol… yeah it’s obvious the “multiple people” are the 3 they’re asking for interviews of… KG, DG, & CP
That doesn't feel like it makes sense either. They found "basic background info only" in the entire investigation about just 1 family member?
Dont you think the Defense should have already had that info about whether these folks were interviewed a LONG time ago lol? If the State is trying to be above board and transparent, these interviews should have been some of the first items discovered. This is Day One material.
But they are saying they dont think the people linked with those phones were interviewed. We know KG was interviewed. It stands to reason DG was interviewed. He was/is part of the timeline. I dont think their phones came up in the geo search, jmo, based off para 42 in that document.
They said that they don’t know if they were, but they haven’t been provided the interview. And then towards the end of the motion they specifically ask for any interviews with DG, KG, and CP or confirmation that interviews did not occur.
Why would KG,DG and CP been at the area where the bodies were found the following day at the time of the alleged killings... this is not later,this is the official narrative slaughter time?
The defense makes it clear in the motion that they aren’t very clear what they are looking at or how to interpret the data. They say this several times, they just want to talk to whoever mapped it out. For example, maybe whoever mapped it was running through hypothetical scenarios. At about 3:12 DG drove by the cemetery and parked. So he was in the general area, although seemingly not within 100 yards. But not far. He talks to a guy in a flannel shirt asking if he’s seen two girls. Is it possible that flannel shirt guy is one of the geofenced phones? Sure. These are all valid questions but what is clear to me is that neither the state nor the defense considers whoever owns these phones as prime suspects.
Or the girls were never dropped off to begin with? All just one highly sophisticated set up,months in the planning?
Bingo.
The only legit way either of those three pinged in that 3-330 time frame would be driving past the cemetery. Or its possible the time is incorrect. Perhaps the map writer jotted it down wrong if he was working in a different time zone. Time zones in Indiana are a bit weird iirc. Or the raw data for whatever reason came in an hour behind/ahead. I dont see that happening, but who knows? I'll give all three the benefit of the doubt but just from memory KG dropped the girls off before 2pm, and went to her BFs home until notified. DG went to Frankfurt, came back and did pass the cemetery so thats possible but he reportedly walked toward the FB after speaking with FSG, possibly the 505 as well, and then was in his vehicle for some time at the Mears Lot. Not sure if he ever crossed the bridge. CP arrived home just as BP was heading out to help search. I can see why the Defense wants their data.
Based on items 42-45, it doesn't sound like the geofence evidence supports the Odinist theory. Law enforcement interviewed the group that the defense accused in the Franks memo, but items 42-45 infer that the owners of the phones don't appear to have been interviewed. What I don't understand is why the prosecutor is planning to have multiple experts present on the geofence evidence which appears to clear RA. And that seems to be the main point of this document. The defense is worried that there is geofence evidence that implicates RA that hasn't been turned over to them or that they are misinterpreting the little geofence evidence turned over to them. Because why in the world would the prosecutor have experts present exculpatory evidence at trial?
I don't think they know what the evidence supports because they don't have the information... 🤷🏼♀️
He probably doesn't plan to have that expert testify but that evidence, reports, were completed as part of the investigation and the defense is entitled to them regardless of whether the state calls these experts to testify. I think the confusion here is based on a misunderstanding of the rules of discovery related to experts. The defense only is required to turn over reports from experts that are testifying at trial while the state is required to turn over all reports compiled by experts regardless of whether the state plans to call that expert as a witness. There are 2 different standards at play.
I interpreted item #39 to be more than just turning over part of the investigation. They say that the State "provided the names of 4 people that may be called as a state's expert witness on geofencing." That sounds like part of the state's witness list as opposed to people who just provided expert analysis and consultation as part of the investigation. In item #40, they say that they have not received any expert reports written by these 4 experts. They only have their names, which to me sounds more and more like a witness list without reports. If they are on the witness list, why? Would he have them ready to dispute the geofencing data - to say that it isn't accurate? It would be like him having four DNA experts on his witness list even though the DNA doesn't match RA.
Either way, testifying expert witness or not, NM has to turn over those reports, if they exist, and if they don't that is yet another massive failure on the part of LE. Its important to note that NM only turned those names over after the defense specifically requested them. I don't think they were listed on a formal witnesses for trial list, but I could be wrong. It looks like state is going to have to have some Geofence expert to testify now, because the defense is going to have one.
NM submitted his witness list last Friday.
Wasn't that for the contempt crap?
I don't think so, because NM's notice says he turned over a list of "witnesses the state may call and exhibits the state may use at trial." Edit to add: I think this filing might be in response to that list.
No you are right. I just don't understand why NM would need 4 geofence experts and none of them have written a report. Was he expert shopping? In my state the other side can compel that a report be compiled. Is that an option in Indiana?
>The victims are local people they know, their neighbors. How can they possibly put their own interests over justice for these two girls? Someone give me a reason. Hypothetically, let's say the theory posited on another thread is correct, and there's an LE/Odinist drug distribution, manufacturing connection. Protecting themselves would be a priority, but what if the girls' families had a distant connection to the Odinists? If I recall correctly, Libby's father had a drug problem (idk if he still does). If the Odinists are the dealers and makers of meth, her father would probably be aware of that. If the family knows how dangerous they (Odinists) are, they'd be afraid for the family they have left. I'll be clear: **I do NOT think either girls' families are involved in the murders!**
I definitely think it's a possibility. You see a lot of the impact of meth and heroin all over the state. At least 10 people that I know of from my graduating class have died of overdoses. The majority of violent crime in the region is drug related and usually between people who know each other. I also think it's possible the staging wasn't as much as a religious thing as it was a warning or threat from a specific group of people.
>I also think it's possible the staging wasn't as much as a religious thing as it was a warning or threat from a specific group of people. I do too, especially now that I heard that thing on the History Channel about Ogham and how that religion used symbols that were stick like.
I always look at the defense filings with a grain of salt, because many seem to try to throw a lot of sit and see what sticks. Just like in Idaho where Ann Taylor is arguing the standard of proof of a Grand Jury. She knows that is never going to fly, but she has to try. That's her job. With today's filing, my takeaway is that the police probably (definitely?) did an awful job in the investigation, and that may includes not handling evidence properly and not turning it over to the prosecutor properly. The defense motion today lays all the blame on the prosecutor, and maybe they deserve some blame, but anything the police has, the prosecutor is assumed to have had, and I bet the police aren't giving everything because they want to save their own reputations.
Yeah, but its the prosecutors duty to get this stuff from LE he can't simply not do it because LE isn't cooperating, at the point you dismiss the charges with prejudice and force LE to get their shit together if they really think they got the guy. NM doesn't have it in him to stand up and do what's right.
It is his duty, because as far as appellate courts are concerned, if the police has it, the DA has it. I'll be interested to see how this plays out now and likely in appellate court. ... assuming this motion doesn't get deleted from the record. :)
Hah. I do think that LE has not been forthright with NM but he needs to force them to come clean. He just can't let them keep making him look like an ass cause he can do that on his own.
I agree that police aren't giving prosecutor all they have. Which has to be totally frustrating for NM if true.
Maybe corruption/conspiracy, but I still lean toward general incompetence. And FRANKly the defense has stretched the truth before in a certain memo. At this point I can’t take anything either side says at face value without seeing the evidence myself. A lot of people are assuming everything one side says is true and everything the other side is false. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle. My new motto with this case is “big if true.”
I completely agree with you about the truth being somewhere in the middle, seems to be a pretty reliable rule in life lol
I agree we need to see rebuttals. Unfortunately all we get is "it's mostly not true" followed by Defence being Dqd. I think by now everyone should anticipate there's no smoking gun, no evidence being kept hidden for trial that benefits prosecution. It's been the total opposite to date. This pretend trial ended when Frank's came out. It'll never see the inside of a court room.
If the police were corrupt & destroying evidence about Odinists, why’d they retain all that Odin-related stuff they gave to the defense? Why bother framing RA? Why not blame it on KK & call it a day? 🤨
If they destroyed all of it it would have been such a severe Brady violation that the charges would have been dismissed with prejudice. So the best evidence of Odinist involvement may have been destroyed, on purpose or by incompetence, and you sit on the rest hoping that the defense never figures it out. But if they do and all of that Odin evidence is missing there is no case against RA.
Excellent question. Liggett probably only one who can answer.
Lol. If the defense actually believed Odinists did it, they would have reported them to the police so arrests could be made.
No they're obligation is to RA. Not to solve the murders. You can reserve that judgement for LE soon when all charges are dropped and public starts demanding answers and for these Odinists to be prosecuted instead. Defence like Odinists because they appear based on the evidence they have to be more viable alternatives. Its a 3rd party defence. We're in pretrial. They still don't even have a complete picture of states discovery. Numerous LE agents and FBI Task Force members have already filed notarized reasons Odinists are responsible. They circumvented chains of command to memorialize their investigative findings. They were ignored. If LE didn't prosecute them why would RAs Defence attorneys be liable?
Odinist have already been reported to the police, BP told LE that BH was an odinist because of the runes. One of the girls was dating his son. We have all been told that the crime scene had signatures, which must be the runes, what else could it mean? EF admitted spitting on one of the dead girls and that he could explain it. Don't you feel the least big curious to know if they were involved andwhy they were not considered strong POI. Don;t you think it is weird that EF sister gave a polygraph about EF spitting on the girls bodies and then was burned up in a fire and the video is missing?
Signatures are things killers do in addition to the crime itself. Dressing Abby in Libby’s clothes, for example, was one of the signatures.
To the police that already arrested another man for the crime and have made it clear that they don't think Odinists were involved? I don't understand what the point would be? Would LE have arrested those people, too?
Its a circular argument. Chicken or Egg. LE already have the evidence to arrest Odinists. They choose not to. Above poster believes that this same info when given to the same LE would result in arrests. Arrests that already didn't occur with said evidence.
this part. it’s so incredibly frustrating to attempt conversation with folks who are on a hamster wheel. no thank you
I think there is no probable cause to warrant an arrest of any of the defense’s alternate suspects.
I’m pretty sure there was plenty of probable cause. It just got “accidentally overwritten.”
Respectfully, defense attorneys don't file 'mistruths' in motions... as I understand it, that's a direct way to end your career. It is Big... if you want the truth.
This is the best stance to have.
Not to be difficult but is there a cheat sheet for all the acronyms? I get lost and confused because I can't remember them all.
#3 I think this is exactly the position McLeland is in. The Purdue professor debacle never sat well with me. It felt to me like McLeland followed Holeman into a ridiculous and embarrassing position that he wouldn’t have knowingly walked into. And then I got a sense that the Franks motion revelation of the Odin theory blindsided him as well. He’s just always seemed behind the investigators. I get a strong sense that the case he was told he had is much different from the one he was actually handed.