In one instance, the defense claims to have seen "In Odin We Trust" patches on prison workers uniforms.
When it’s 4th and 27 might as well take a shot at the end zone.
And he stole Allen's gun, dropped a round of the same brand, killed the girls, then put the gun back?I just looked up one of the people mentioned on FB, and they are creepy and look kinda like the Bridge Guy. Bizarre. I never even heard of this.
I don't think any of that first sentence. Just stating what i think after checking his FB.And he stole Allen's gun, dropped a round of the same brand, killed the girls, then put the gun back?
The only way this works in my mind with him not being the killer is he was there with the Odins, watched them kill her, then took his gun and went home.
Otherwise we are toying with the one armed man defense.
How is this "muddying the jury pool"? As noted elsewhere, it seems to be the "one-armed man defense". A bit more out there, but...Ah, the old muddying the jury pool tactic.
How is this "muddying the jury pool"? As noted elsewhere, it seems to be the "one-armed man defense". A bit more out there, but...
“There is a reason that in his sworn affidavit Liggett concealed key information from Judge Diener and lied about other key information: Had Diener known the hidden and falsified facts then Diener would never have signed the search warrant – a search warrant that was already insufficient in linking Richard Allen to the murders even before Liggett’s lies and deceptions.”
a search warrant that was already insufficient in linking Richard Allen to the murders even before Liggett’s lies and deceptions.”
Because the facts in this memorandum are dense for anyone not yet completely familiar with this case, the Defense is providing this introductory section
They even being by announcing that the intended audience is not the court, but rather those "not yet completely familiar with the case" (also known as the jury pool):
I am puzzled by some the comments here. It seems many here have already made a determination in this but somehow this filing is prejudicial to the case?I am not a lawyer, but I also thought the lawyers were only talking to the court/jury. We the bystanders were only to be silent observers. It shouldn't matter if we know.
I am not a lawyer, but I also thought the lawyers were only talking to the court/jury. We the bystanders were only to be silent observers. It shouldn't matter if we know.
I haven’t read a lot of court documents, but I did think the language/phrasing in this one was … odd.… It's like they hired someone from one of the true crime subreddits to write it. …
Agreed.I haven’t read a lot of court documents, but I did think the language/phrasing in this one was … odd.
...
Trust me when I tell you that the "incarcerated persons" are not at all afraid to make any and every allegation.
...
I thought the whole point of adding likes would be to make it sufficient? I know it's the substance that matters but I can't help noticing how badly this entire document is written. It's like they hired someone from one of the true crime subreddits to write it. I thought lawyers were supposed to be persuasive.
They even begin by announcing that the intended audience is not the court, but rather those "not yet completely familiar with the case" (also known as the jury pool):