Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

[photographer4]

what does any of that have to do with RAs guilt or innocence?

It doesn't - but I wonder if they're hoping more of their RA is innocent of the charges narrative gets out as a result of both the contempt trial and the trial against MW? They may be waiting to assess how the public receives whatever comes out at these matters before proceeding with speedy trial motion? I don't really know - but its clear to me that MW seems to want the information out there in the public as to what exactly happened, and the how and why - otherwise, why fight a basic theft charge??

 

[photographer4]

" or did he "just" abduct them? "


Even if he 'just' abducted them, he'd still be liable for their murder. If he is connected in any way, he is spending his life on prison. IMO

I do agree - if he acted alone, or as part of a group and did nothing to help those kids? Then he oughta fry. I say "just" in quotations to show that there shouldn't be a difference between helping and killing. "Just" - either way, these kids died and if was in any way a part of it, I hope he goes down for it, along with anyone else involved.

 

[katydid23]

They get paid to represent him, not to believe him. They chose to do that. I freely admit, many will falsely state that their client is innocent without ever believing it. But, I strongly believe these attorneys actually do. JMHO

There is a difference between [1]them believing their client is innocent, vs [2] a belief that the prosecution won't be able to prove his guilt because of incompetence of LE and the DA.

I think they fall into the 2nd option, not the 1st. JMO

 

[nadia90]

There is a difference between [1]them believing their client is innocent, vs [2] a belief that the prosecution won't be able to prove his guilt because of incompetence of LE and the DA.

I think they fall into the 2nd option, not the 1st. JMO

Well his wife is standing by him so he must be innocent.....lol

 

[mickey2942]

But RA is not yet convicted - and as far as I know, his daughter is an adult, not necessarily in need of protection in the way a minor child would be. What I do wonder, is whether RA's loved ones (mother, daughter, wife) have seen the evidence in full that the state has against RA? Not sure what they're entitled to see as his loved ones, or if he may have signed a consent to allow his legal team to speak with them - is it possible that they have seen more than we have, and have doubts as to his guilt?

I thought that he confessed his guilt to his wife and mother?

 

[GoBuckeyes]

He did, but did the phone necessarily have to be *his*? Could he theoretically have obtained a device from say KK or some associate at say... the Marathon Gas Station nearest the crime scene? Done the crime then handed it back to someone at some point post crime? It might be very interesting that HIS phone has no evidence to the crime scene.

The biggest most interesting thing to me is that a witness saw a "muddy" man who may have been bloody and appeared as though he'd been in a fight walking post crime - IF that was RA and he got into his car, there is (in my view) NO WAY he didn't have a transfer of evidence from the scene to the car or from the car to the scene. But yet still nothing ties him to the scene via DNA per his legal team - so IS RA the killer? Or, did he "just" abduct them? Or was he just a man at the bridge who didn't see anything?

I'm not convinced he did anything at all but be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing about this case makes sense. I just read a post that said he confessed to his wife no less than 5 times. Why would someone confess 5 times? If he were my husband, the first time he confessed would be the last time I spoke to him.

But she's going to give him 4 more excruciating conversations? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Boxer]

He was the man that AW and LG met on the bridge.

The witneess saw him on platform 1, she turned around and passed the girls on their way to the bridge.
RA could not have walked from platform 1 to go sit on a bench as he said without passing them.
He said he did not see them.

MOO he saw them coming, hid and and followed them on the bridge.

 

[Megnut]

He was the man that AW and LG met on the bridge.

The witneess saw him on platform 1, she turned around and passed the girls on their way to the bridge.
RA could not have walked from platform 1 to go sit on a bench as he said without passing them.
He said he did not see them.

MOO he saw them coming, hid and and followed them on the bridge.

He didn't need to hide.

He probably passed them just as they were approaching the bridge. Could've spoken to them. "Be careful". Halfway between fatherly and creepy. Followed the lady long enough to feel confident she was leaving and then returned to the bridge where he knew they were trapped and alone.

Again, no need to hide. If he met them as they were approaching the bridge, as he was on course exactly to do, he'd appear to be leaving. And they were probably happy to see him go, without much of a thought.

Minutes away from terror.

JMO

 

[Boxer]

He didn't need to hide.

He probably passed them just as they were approaching the bridge. Could've spoken to them. "Be careful". Halfway between fatherly and creepy. Followed the lady long enough to feel confident she was leaving and then returned to the bridge where he knew they were trapped and alone.

Again, no need to hide. If he met them as they were approaching the bridge, as he was on course exactly to do, he'd appear to be leaving. And they were probably happy to see him go, without much of a thought.

Minutes away from terror.

JMO

True.
Just pass them and turn around after them.
Sad.

 

[Megnut]

Also...

I wonder about the few facts that we have. Or think we have. The discrepancies.

Going from memory here

1:30-3:30
12:30-1
Saw three juveniles
There were four
Looking at his phone
Looking at fish
Looking at stocks

Could it be that he was presplaining?

Could it be that, presented with facts, he adjusted his narrative?

As in, LE says we have four juveniles who saw you? That puts you on the bridge after 1:30. -- the group I saw was only 3.

LE: a lady saw you on the platform, she met A and L as they approached the bridge. You would have had to see them. Unless you're lying about that. -- I'm not lying. I was on my phone, I must not have noticed them.

LE: what about the lady? She saw you. On the platform. -- that must have been when I was watching fish. I left right after that. Sat on a bench. Looking at my phone. Then I went home at 1:30 or 2.

Seems criminals oftentimes find a way to mold their stories as they go.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

True.
Just pass them and turn around after them.
Sad.

He also knew it would take them a span of time to cross and cross back so he may have followed the lady walker near to her car, perfect way to make sure the path would be clear of witnesses. Then double back. He knew he had them trapped.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I'm not convinced he did anything at all but be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing about this case makes sense. I just read a post that said he confessed to his wife no less than 5 times. Why would someone confess 5 times? If he were my husband, the first time he confessed would be the last time I spoke to him.

But she's going to give him 4 more excruciating conversations? It doesn't make sense.

I don't think all 5 confessions were to his wife. IIRC he confessed 5x in total, to his wife and his mother. So it could have been just twice to his wife, who hung up on him the 1st time, I believe.

So maybe he called again at a later time and she asked him about it?

 

[Soulmagent]

You think AB & BR are not responsible in any way for what occured in and through their law practices? They have no blame to be laid at their feet for any of the violations that occured? Would or should the same grace be extended to the prosecution IF it was their leaks and behavior that compromised a fair trial for a defendant? Just curious

So..Jumping off your post straight into a question .
Wasn't our whole legal system influenced and inspired by centuries of improper prosecution ?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Also...

I wonder about the few facts that we have. Or think we have. The discrepancies.

Going from memory here

1:30-3:30
12:30-1
Saw three juveniles
There were four
Looking at his phone
Looking at fish
Looking at stocks

Could it be that he was presplaining?

Could it be that, presented with facts, he adjusted his narrative?

As in, LE says we have four juveniles who saw you? That puts you on the bridge after 1:30. -- the group I saw was only 3.

LE: a lady saw you on the platform, she met A and L as they approached the bridge. You would have had to see them. Unless you're lying about that. -- I'm not lying. I was on my phone, I must not have noticed them.

LE: what about the lady? She saw you. On the platform. -- that must have been when I was watching fish. I left right after that. Sat on a bench. Looking at my phone. Then I went home at 1:30 or 2.

Seems criminals oftentimes find a way to mold their stories as they go.

JMO

Absolutely agree, and I've said that is exactly what happened during the Oct 2022 interview. RA may have said "yes, I remember some girls walking on Freedom Bridge at xyz time" and then LE slapped him with a "yeah, no. It was actually 1:48 according to them"we have some timestamped photos from them and with the lady who saw him on the MH Bridge on the platform, "we have a witness that places you there at approx 2:05 pm". "Oh yeah, that's right, I went out there to gaze at fish".

He changed his statements to fit the narrative because he knew he was caught in lies verses his first story when he said he wasn't on the MHB, just the trails, and was unaware of any witnesses discrepancies. Slick Rick, not so much really.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

By the defence's own argument (via the Habeas attorney), the contempt matter should be a completely different proceedings and has nothing to do with RA's trial.

If the defence are too busy to represent RA properly because they are dealing with their own personal disciplinary matters then they should not be representing him. This is indeed one reason why RA may not have been well advised to stick with them.

So no, the contempt proceedings don't wash with me as a reason why <modnote - ROZZI> can't move ahead with speedy trial.

They've had essentially a month since the SCOIN judgement to get their feet back under the table. The case is effectively the same, (yes there are new charges). It is them choosing not to move ahead swiftly. They can't blame anyone else for that now.

Ausbrook is saying Mcleland filed the contempt charges incorrectly, and it should have been filed in a different court. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect the defense and their time, as it is still contempt charges they now need to defend themselves from instead of moving on with the trial, and still the court is meddling in the constitutional rights of a defendant by allowing this circus to continue. Especially when they are ignoring the law and protocol as they do so, as most judges wouldn’t even have a hearing for something filed incorrectly (and typically this would be another judge). This should be about justice for Abby & Libby, not attacking the attorneys that are your adversaries in court. The law is pointless when courts do not follow it. Protocol exists for this exact reason.

JMHO

 

[zh0r4]

Bundy's wife stood by him for quite a while too....

Ted Bundy’s wife didn’t stand by him, she married him in 1980 after he was already convicted/he was incarcerated and she likely suffered from hybristophilia.

 

[zh0r4]

But RA is not yet convicted - and as far as I know, his daughter is an adult, not necessarily in need of protection in the way a minor child would be. What I do wonder, is whether RA's loved ones (mother, daughter, wife) have seen the evidence in full that the state has against RA? Not sure what they're entitled to see as his loved ones, or if he may have signed a consent to allow his legal team to speak with them - is it possible that they have seen more than we have, and have doubts as to his guilt?

Anything is possible IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

So..Jumping off your post straight into a question .
Wasn't our whole legal system influenced and inspired by centuries of improper prosecution ?

RBBM

I'm not sure what you mean here by centuries of improper prosecution? I freely admit I may not have had enough coffee yet.

 

[mrjitty]

Ausbrook is saying Mcleland filed the contempt charges incorrectly, and it should have been filed in a different court. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect the defense and their time, as it is still contempt charges they now need to defend themselves from instead of moving on with the trial,

Ausbrook questions whether the contempt can be filed into the same proceeding, but whatever the answer to that question, the subject of contempt is <modnote - ROZZI> and not RA. The fact that <modnote - ROZZI> now have to divert resources to this is an example of how they have compromised their representation of their client.

and still the court is meddling in the constitutional rights of a defendant by allowing this circus to continue.

I don't believe the Court has meddled in anything, having granted nothing but a continuance of a hearing to consider the matter. DH himself indicated in oral argument back in October that contempt would be an appropriate avenue to address the behaviour of the defence attorneys. So in some venue, and/or form, and at some time, they will end up having to account.

Personally I would prefer it not be filed into RA's case and handled by some other Judge in independent proceedings, because this has nothing to do with RA.

Especially when they are ignoring the law and protocol as they do so, as most judges wouldn’t even have a hearing for something filed incorrectly (and typically this would be another judge). This should be about justice for Abby & Libby, not attacking the attorneys that are your adversaries in court. The law is pointless when courts do not follow it. Protocol exists for this exact reason.

JMHO

Even if we accept that Ausbook is correct and the contempt proceedings were filed incorrectly, the state will remedy that at the end of the day.

It is not clear to me why Baldwin in particular should not face contempt proceedings given his conduct. Perhaps <modnote - ROZZI> can argue that they be stayed until the end of the trial - again i would have no issue with that.

 

[zh0r4]

Ausbrook questions whether the contempt can be filed into the same proceeding, but whatever the answer to that question, the subject of contempt is <modnote- ROZZI> and not RA. The fact that <modnote- ROZZI> now have to divert resources to this is an example of how they have compromised their representation of their client.



I don't believe the Court has meddled in anything, having granted nothing but a continuance of a hearing to consider the matter. DH himself indicated in oral argument back in October that contempt would be an appropriate avenue to address the behaviour of the defence attorneys. So in some venue, and/or form, and at some time, they will end up having to account.

Personally I would prefer it not be filed into RA's case and handled by some other Judge in independent proceedings, because this has nothing to do with RA.



Even if we accept that Ausbook is correct and the contempt proceedings were filed incorrectly, the state will remedy that at the end of the day.

It is not clear to me why Baldwin in particular should not face contempt proceedings given his conduct. Perhaps <modnote- ROZZI> ozzwin can argue that they be stayed until the end of the trial - again i would have no issue with that.

Attorney Michael Ausbrook, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of law who specializes in post conviction appeals and federal habeas cases, answers all of these questions with numerous law citations in his February 7 filing (doc linked below).

Bbm

“The State's Information has many flaws. Not least among them is its failure to allege, either directly or by inference, either Mr. Baldwin or Mr. Rozzi committed any of the supposed offending acts willfully. See Ind. Code § 34-47-3-1 (defining indirect contempt as "willful disobedience" of a court order).

But the State's information has two additional flaws that are fatal. First, to the extent the State's Information purports to allege indirect civil contempt, it fails to allege any act injuring the State that a remedial or coercive contempt sanction could redress. The State therefore lacks standing to pursue its Information as one for indirect civil contempt, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.

Second, because there is no available remedial or coercive contempt sanction, any contempt sanction would necessarily be punitive and therefore for a finding of indirect criminal contempt. But to pursue indirect criminal contempt against Messrs. Baldwin and Rozzi, the State would have to file its Information in a separate criminal case. It has not done so, and this Court has no authority to punish Messrs. Baldwin and Rozzi for indirect criminal contempt in this criminal case against Mr. Allen.

Finally, were the Court to impose, without jurisdiction or authority to do so, any necessarily punitive sanction on the State's Information in this criminal case against Mr. Allen, it would be at least the second time the Court has interfered with Mr. Allen's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 683 (1984) (*The Court has considered Sixth Amendment claims based ... on state interference with the ability of counsel to render effective assistance to the accused."

Source:
Defendant's Counsel's Motion for Summary Denial of the State's Verified Information for Contemptuous Conduct filed By Ausbrook, 2/7/2024

2024 2/7 Defense SummaryDenialMotionContempt.pdf

drive.google.com