I'm really curious about the medication situation. If he was on meds prior to arrest, if they were genuinely being administered incorrectly during the "psychosis" time period, if the "psychosis" stopped with treatment, etc.
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #180
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
- Status
I'd also note it is possible that RA had a psychological break of some kind because he is guilty and realised this was the rest of his life. I think the defence assume a causation that is not actually shown in their pleading.
Has he been charged with such crimes? Has anyone previously come forward accusing him of such a crime in this world of #metoo? One would think they would be coming out of the wood work since his arrest. JMO
The man was in a state of psychosis is the argument due to the conditions he was subjected to. I suspect they have expert testimony in that regard. Of course, there will be those that will believe ANY expert that provides ANY clinical explanation for RA’s “confessions” is a LIAR. JMO
ed:gr
Last edited:
The implication in the memo that the prison doctor would be in on the plan is a bit of a stretch IMO, without specific evidence. Depression and psychosis are completely different conditions. And if he did have a psychosis, i am pretty sure he would be medicated - just like he would be if he was admitted to hospital suffering from one. Likely he'd be asked to take medication voluntarily, and if he did not then it could easily go the committal route. I don't know how any of that works in prison, but i'd kind of be amazed if someone had a psychotic episode in prison and the doctors didn't do anything.
Right - but they don't ask to suppress the strongest evidence - recorded confessions to family. Why not, if, as you say, he had a psychosis when he made them?
I agree, and in some ways, the whole idea of his mental instability could wind up being useful in arguing his guilt, especially considering the "odd" CS. I don't think we will ever be privy to his mental health history, but it's curious if he might have been off his meds in Feb. 2017, as well. And I'm not suggesting an insanity defense by any means...that's not at play here, IMO.
Of course, this is assuming he's guilty. Anyone who read the PCA knows the State claims a gun was used in the kidnappings, a bullet was found between the girls, and their clothing was found in the creek. That would infer a SA and shooting, so his confessions fall in line with that, even if he's innocent. That's just me giving benefit of doubt until I hear evidence at trial.
I guess that's my point. If during the time of March-June of 2023, RA was deemed to have some kind of "psychosis" condition, when was the evaluation, when did medication begin, how consistent was the administering of the medication, did it take time to get the dosage correct, etc. This is only a couple months time, which makes me curious if by June, the meds had been corrected and he improved.
I was thinking if he did have a mental break then him saying he shot one of them in the back.
Well maybe he attempted to and the gun malfunctioned and that’s why a bullet ended up between the bodies. So in his broken metal state (if true) he has slightly misremembered what happened. He has broken memories of that day due to his mental state.
Well maybe he attempted to and the gun malfunctioned and that’s why a bullet ended up between the bodies. So in his broken metal state (if true) he has slightly misremembered what happened. He has broken memories of that day due to his mental state.
If it’s true RA’s defense team is proven totally useless:
Comparing RA only now to a defendant with a documented history of mental illness.
“Already suffering from bona fide mental health disorder,”
Where in the world have they been from day 1 with that information?
Why didn’t they protect him from the beginning?
Their document proves they knowingly let a “bona fide mental disorder” person be subjected to known detainment conditions that would aggravate that disorder instead of mitigating them by admitting he was unfit.
So his attorneys probably told RA to act that way.
They are ever so pleased with their huffy report since they imperiled him with intent to drive him mad by not being honest about his now announced existing mental health disorder.
The defense, sensing the headwinds of Richard Allen worriers, would want to sail into that too, imo.
all imo
Comparing RA only now to a defendant with a documented history of mental illness.
“Already suffering from bona fide mental health disorder,”
Where in the world have they been from day 1 with that information?
Why didn’t they protect him from the beginning?
Their document proves they knowingly let a “bona fide mental disorder” person be subjected to known detainment conditions that would aggravate that disorder instead of mitigating them by admitting he was unfit.
So his attorneys probably told RA to act that way.
They are ever so pleased with their huffy report since they imperiled him with intent to drive him mad by not being honest about his now announced existing mental health disorder.
The defense, sensing the headwinds of Richard Allen worriers, would want to sail into that too, imo.
all imo
FrostedGlass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 28,133
I'm interested in learning more about his prison "companions"
Is there an incentive to become one?
How did they choose which ones to match up with RA?
Do they sincerely care about the issues the inmate is facing?
Or are they just prison snitches in disguise?
Who to trust, who to trust?
Is there an incentive to become one?
How did they choose which ones to match up with RA?
Do they sincerely care about the issues the inmate is facing?
Or are they just prison snitches in disguise?
Who to trust, who to trust?
StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,190
- Reaction score
- 38,545
If your disreputable defense attorneys tell you, your goose is cooked after you confessed voluntarily multiple times to your wife and mother, and they suggest the only way to devalue those confessions is for you to confess to other people with information inconsistent with the crime scene. That’s why you do it.
“Strongest evidence?” Maybe those confessions are not worth mentioning as they will be easily discounted for whatever reason. OR, maybe they just wanted to keep the Motion to Suppress to a reasonable length?? JMT
It will be interesting to see how long it took for the authorities to notify the prison doctor and exactly what medications were prescribed. Some medications have a very bad affect on different individuals. What helps one person can be detrimental to another. JMO
FrostedGlass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 28,133
We have a right to privacy regarding our mental and physical health records. HIPAA
We have the right to share those records only with the people of our choice.
When we are forced to share those records, there are procedures in place to properly access them.
There would be no reason for his attys to bring his mental records into the picture until it was necessary.
It's been necessary ever since they began to see a decline. They asked that he be transferred out multiple times. There's not much more they can do except continue to put it all on record.
MOO
Last edited:
StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,190
- Reaction score
- 38,545
I think it’s because those confessions were voluntary and recorded and contain specific information that matches the crime and crime scene. They are not so easy to dismiss.
In order to argue against those confessions the defense would have to reveal to the world that the wife and mother confessions included correct information about the crime. As is their strategy, they only push their agenda.
StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,190
- Reaction score
- 38,545
Just speaking for myself, I do not believe any expert that testifies for RA is a liar. I sure would like to hear them testify in court, though, instead of getting a mishmash of things in a one sided motion.
I do however think the defense attorneys are liars.
Just as baffling to me is why NMcL only mentioned the phone confessions at the June hearing. He didn't mention any of these other confessions to "state actors", yet the D claims the State plans to use them at trial. It's hard to say what strategy is at play here, IMO.
TTF14
On Time Out
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 13,926
- Reaction score
- 61,947
And risk disbarment? Nah.
Is it possible there were no confessions to the wife and mother? I can't remember where we heard he confessed to his wife and mother, but if it was a game of telephone like what seems to have happened here (with the "prisoners as guards" telling other prisoners what he said, then they passed it on to family members on the outside....)....
I really need more coffee so forgive me if my brain is not yet keyed up.....
- Status