Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #180

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
layer said:
The fact that they are confessions shows guilt towards RA. But we need details.
Click to expand...
Of course we hope to get the details at trial, or someday. But already there are enough facts and logic to back an inference that what favors RA comes out, whereas what favors the state stays sealed.

Confessions heretofore unpublicized are in a motion to suppress, despite there being no need to suppress a self-discrediting statement that would not help the state’s case in the slightest. We are told at least in paraphrase what RA said.

The content of confessions known to be part of the state’s case are still unknown. We only know that he confessed. The D has not addressed those confessions. Ergo they are damaging.

Perhaps the clearly bogus confessions are a bait and switch, inviting confusion with the problematic ones. Perhaps they merely cheapen the currency of an RA confession. There could be other advantages I’m not seeing. But I see a stratagem, not a delusional ranting.
 
WildHuncher said:
The content of confessions known to be part of the state’s case are still unknown. We only know that he confessed. The D has not addressed those confessions. Ergo they are damaging.
Click to expand...
IOW, while the D might have tried to capitalize on the "self-discrediting" bogus confessions, they're just hoping no one notices when recordings of RA making non-bogus confessions are played in court? This is the strategy?
 
mrjitty said:
Thanks! That deals with police interrogations but is perhaps relevant by analogy. It seems to be the case that the confession isn't unconstitutional simply because the defendant has delusions.



Having dealt with someone who had a psychosis, it is not the case that everything they said/did was delusional. Indeed at times they were much more forthcoming than perhaps was wise. But they did also believe things that were obviously not true. I suspect you can't just say as a rule, the confessions must be untrue. But i guess you could say they are unsafe, depending on the circumstances?

Also - I guess I doubt Judge Gull is going to find the confessions were coerced, given her previous findings on safekeeping.
Click to expand...
RBBM
I actually think Judge Gull will be circumspect with this one. She just approved the deposition, and she'll get a copy of that b/4 decision. Gull may find she needs to hold a hearing after getting the P response. JMHO
 
layer said:
IOW, while the D might have tried to capitalize on the "self-discrediting" bogus confessions, they're just hoping no one notices when recordings of RA making non-bogus confessions are played in court? This is the strategy?
Click to expand...
They’ll notice but it’s just another bunch of confessions from an unreliable serial confessor.
 
Just catching up on the action.

One minute RA's a criminal genius eating feces, and the next, he's a dumb schmuck yapping about his CSA in a population that's happy to shank CSA inmates.

Such a versatile avatar this BG = RA character and all his speculative adventures.
Reminds me of a video game.

JMHO
 
layer said:
IOW, while the D might have tried to capitalize on the "self-discrediting" bogus confessions, they're just hoping no one notices when recordings of RA making non-bogus confessions are played in court? This is the strategy?
Click to expand...
Everything depends on the timeline and clinical findings, of course. BUT...maybe the strategy is, again, to get it all on the record. Frankly, I think the D knows JG is likely going to deny this motion to suppress, so maybe it's written with that in mind.

During the June 2023 hearing, the D addressed those phone confessions as being vague, inconsistent, and so on (going off memory). If that's at all true, it might actually be favorable to RA for the jury to hear everything the D wrote about in that memo, especially the statements that don't match the known facts, how he was in a state of "psychosis," and the possible violations of rights. If NMcL presents the phone confessions to the jury and there is any room for interpretation as to how valid they are, the D gets the chance to present these arguments that might then overshadow the strength of the confessions as evidence. IDK...just an idea I'm kicking around.

Either way, I think the D putting it all on the record now allows for them to see the State's response, plus it also gets as much information on record as possible in case there are civil liberties violation appeals later on, which is a very real possibility, IMO.
 
Last edited:
layer said:
Wouldn't abhorrent conditions that lead to psychosis and delusional confessions be the basis for declaring them as unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
Who is to say that the prison conditions led to the psychosis though? Could feelings of guilt have done so? Or the mental health issues were already there and caused the criminal actions first?
 
TTF14 said:
Wasn't there something about feces eating with Mark Redwine, who was some people's POI for Delphi (maybe still is)? Weird.
Click to expand...
Yes but he did so proudly, for fun, as a personal fetish. He took videos of himself doing so and put them on the internet---which some say was the trigger for the tension between him and his son, whom he eventually killed.
 
From motion to suppress:

The statements were involuntary, and thus obtained in violation of the
following:

a. Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
b. Sixth Amendment of United States Constitution;
c. Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and
d. Article I, Sections 12, 13, and 14 of the Indiana Constitution.

From Indiana Law Journal: THE SUBJECTIVE STANDARD OF VOLUNTARINESS Involuntary confessions are clearly inadmissible in Indiana by virtue of the following statute: "The confession of a defendant made under inducement, with all the circumstances, may be given in evidence against him, except when made under the influence of fear produced by threats or by intimidation or undue influence; but a confession made under inducement is not sufficient to warrant a conviction without corroborating evidence."

More: Negative inducements to confess are inducements such as physical force executed upon the accused, threats, deprivation of food and sleep, etc. Undoubtedly, all jurisdictions hold that confessions obtained by such means are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

More: The law presumes that an insane person can commit no rational, voluntary act; he has no capacity to make a rational decision; nor can he know of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the confession of an insane person is a nullity.

So was he tortured in prison into a confession, basically? My guess is no. The conditions he has been kept under are certainly something that need to be addressed, but I don't think the issues I have with his conditions go to admissibility of the confessions in the legal context laid out. Is he crazy? Or is this all conjured up? "...he has no capacity to make a rational decision; nor can he know of his constitutional rights" He made sure he got his attorneys of choice back after JG removed them. If he had no capacity to "make a rational decision," the judge's decision for removal should have stood. RA seems very aware of his constitutional rights.

Personally, I think him taking those particular attorneys back is the act of someone irrational, but MOO. I really mean it when I say he'd have been far better off with Lebrato. I would think the confessions may well be allowed in, I don't give them much weight regardless. But the D must because they're trying to get erroneous confessions thrown out in the hopes of getting other undiscussed confessions thrown out, so my guess is the undiscussed confessions may be damningly accurate. Whatever about the confessions, I do suspect RA has suffered civil rights violations. I heard a YouTuber noting Heuermann, Kohberger, they're not all shackled up and being led around like this. They're demanding vegan meals, sporting suits, and complaining about the lack of butter. Agreed. Even if RA's guilty as sin, this is a real concern. And he hasn't even been convicted. I think he will be, but it's irrelevant to what's happening now. And maybe he won't be convicted. What then?
 
Caylee Advocate said:
This article is dated 2/14/2022 (5 year anniversary of Libby and Abby's horrendous murders) so FBI posted this.. color me confused once again.


Click to expand...
Your link is broken because of the confused faces butted up against it. This one works:


Not much info there though.
 
layer said:
But this was supposedly a mini katana, not something you would see in hara-kari.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed. Not suggesting it literally, but the symbolism behind it is kind of creepy in his context. I mean, I see katana key chains, it may be just something frivolous. Or maybe not, some minis are like a foot in length. It's just a more unusual item to have.
 
Salah11 said:
The fact the defense have omitted various confessions would indicate they show guilt towards RA.

IMO
Click to expand...

Yes I still don't really get this. Especially if you are trying to create the record for appeal, why would you not include the most important confessions in your pleading, and your reasoning to exclude them?

They lay out the evidential foundation for the 2 other types of confession - to inmates, and to staff, but they don't include ones that are in a completely different context and recorded. If you don't plead it, then you aren't creating that record.
 
Emma Peel said:
Very last 2 lines of the Memorandum, p. 11:


2024 4/11 Allen Memorandum.pdf.pdf

Agree it's a broad summary statement. But it references relevant sections of the Constitution and seeks suppression for "any and all incriminating statements" "while incarcerated".

Would that not include phone call "confessions" to family?
Click to expand...

Right but they set out the context for 2 categories of confession in detail, and bring the precedents as to why they should be excluded. The phone confessions, they don't even mention, let alone the context or basis for exclusion. That is important, because the phone confessions are not made to 'agents of the state' per their pleading.

So I think they could make arguments, but if they don't actually make them, it is hard to see why the Judge would exclude those confessions. Maybe the defence doesn't believe they have any chance to get those ones excluded?

It's really quite odd to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 172 more.
Total: 1,591 (members: 173, guests: 1,418)

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,418
Total visitors
1,591
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,486
Messages
18,006,873
Members
229,417
Latest member
aimilino01
Back
Top