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

[TL4S]

In my uneducated opinion, they should allow all or none. If one of the confessions "gets it right" (i.e. they were stabbed) and the others don't, it's shady to allow only the one that "fits" and not the others. Maybe by asking for all to be suppressed they are counting on Judge Gull only allowing the ones mentioned in the memo be suppressed but letting the other(s) in, and this is an appellate strategy?

Also, I do believe he could have been suffering acute psychosis from a number of factors, including the inconsistent (and maybe worse) meds.

I agree with all of this. If those phone confessions are truly damning evidence, then why wouldn't the D be trying hard to get those suppressed? Why would they be spending all their time omitting the damning evidence, which NMcL would surely plan to use at trial, only to try to suppress the confessions that don't even match the crime, which were said during "psychosis," and could probably be in RA's favor to be heard by the jury as a whole picture of his confession circumstances? They know they can't just blanket suppress everything without putting specifics in the pleading, IMO. I don't know what it is, but I think there's a reason behind the phone confessions being omitted. Either the D is going to make a separate motion to suppress for them, or they don't care if NMcL uses them at trial. JMO.

 

[layer]

So yes I think it absolutely happens that attorneys try to encourage their clients to fight to win freedom. JMO

I would be interested in seeing what actual attorneys have to say, but I just don't believe that it's SOP for lawyers to manipulate remorseful clients who admit guilt into lying and pleading innocence just to rack up $100 per hour legal fees. And it seems highly unethical and possibly illegal to me. Yet you think this is likely?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I would be interested in seeing what actual attorneys have to say, but I just don't believe that it's SOP for lawyers to manipulate remorseful clients who admit guilt into lying and pleading innocence just to rack up $100 per hour legal fees. And it seems highly unethical and possibly illegal to me. Yet you thinnk this is likely?

Yes I do think that some defense attorneys are ego driven, money motivated and thrive off the thrill of the “game”.
Especially ones that use exaggerated and dramatic language in their filings. JMO

 

[layer]

You forgot the ego part. And yes. I think some defense attorneys thrive off the thrill of the game.

Everyone involved has egos, from JG to Nick to RA. Even some of us
I'm really curious if this would be a violation of some sort. If that's what's really going on it would be despicable to put us all through this. And I can't see violating human decency like that doing anything but diminishing the ego of the perpetrators. Seriously, who could be proud of such a thing?

Eta: If any lawyers out there want to know how to turn a legitimately neutral juror into a fanboy of the state that just signed off on a guilty verdict - do stuff like that.
JMHO

 

[TTF14]

The only other case I can think of of the top of my head (and I'm not an attorney) is Katie Magbanua, who was convicted of conspiring to help murder her ex-boyfriend's ex-brother-in-law, Dan Markel. It's long been suspected that Katie's attorneys were paid for by the Adelson family, who hired the hit, and didn't want to be caught. So, they didn't want her to plea and her paid-for attorneys talked her out of it (theory of some). Now that Katie has been convicted and sentenced to life, she's talking. She has never said her attorneys "talked her out of it" though, and instead says she didn't fess up at first because she didn't want to implicate her baby daddy, the actual trigger man. Still, there is a lot of suspicion about her attorneys.

IMO, MOO

 

[susane7]

It is unethical advise the client they plea deal might not be the best choice? Our systems are very different, so please don't hate me (lol) but I had a client who was being investigated by a minor robbery and he admitted to me and wanted to confess but I checked the process and see the evidence was very weak and told him that in my opinion he could lie to the prosecutor because the weakness of the proof but I said it was his choice. He decided to lie (the defendand has the right to lie here) and he was even not indicted/charged for the crime.

It is unethical in US the attorneys saying something like "I saw the evidence and I think the evidence is circunstancial, you might have a chance. The peal deal is not a good choice in my opinion here. But if your want to plea deal the choice is yours?" or even if the evidence is more than circunstancial the attorneys saying "we just need to convice one juror. You are really sure you don't want to try?", especially if there is no DNA. And the defendant could be changed his mind. Doesn't seem unethical to me but I want to know what US attorneys have to say.

 

[WildHuncher]

I agree with all of this. If those phone confessions are truly damning evidence, then why wouldn't the D be trying hard to get those suppressed? Why would they be spending all their time omitting the damning evidence, which NMcL would surely plan to use at trial, only to try to suppress the confessions that don't even match the crime, which were said during "psychosis," and could probably be in RA's favor to be heard by the jury as a whole picture of his confession circumstances? They know they can't just blanket suppress everything without putting specifics in the pleading, IMO. I don't know what it is, but I think there's a reason behind the phone confessions being omitted. Either the D is going to make a separate motion to suppress for them, or they don't care if NMcL uses them at trial. JMO.

But the closing sentences of the memo *do* appear to lump the damning confessions in with the absurd ones. (Yes, I missed this earlier. It’s easy to do. They snuck it in.)

 

[WildHuncher]

The D say "supress as evidence in this cause any and all communications, confessions, statements or admissions, written or oral, made by him subsequent to his arrest". They are trying to exclude all statements made by RA after his detention, including his confessions to his family, I think. The evidence of a psychotic episode is why they would be inadmissible and it’s the same for the statements made to guards or fellow inmates. They just don't made specifics about the other confessions and put the all the confessions in the same bucket because his alleged psychotic episode. The fact they just pick one confessions to talk in specific, makes me wonder if the other confessions are more accurate and damning and the sentence in their memo "The truth or falsity of Allen's statements are of no consequence to this analysis" makes me suspect that the other confessions are accurate. I think the timeline of the confessions and his medical records will be very important here.

You just caught them coming over to borrow a cup of flour and sneaking out with the turkey.

 

[TL4S]

But the closing sentences of the memo *do* appear to lump the damning confessions in with the absurd ones. (Yes, I missed this earlier. It’s easy to do. They snuck it in.)

Do you mean the "truth or falsity of Allen's statements" line?

 

[WildHuncher]

Do you mean the "truth or falsity of Allen's statements" line?

"supress as evidence in this cause any and all communications, confessions, statements or admissions, written or oral, made by him subsequent to his arrest".

 

[Cyber sleuth]

It is unethical advise the client they plea deal might not be the best choice? Our systems are very different, so please don't hate me (lol) but I had a client who was being investigated by a minor robbery and he admitted to me and wanted to confess but I checked the process and see the evidence was very weak and told him that in my opinion he could lie to the prosecutor because the weakness of the proof but I said it was his choice. He decided to lie (the defendand has the right to lie here) and he was even not indicted/charged for the crime.

It is unethical in US the attorneys saying something like "I saw the evidence and I think the evidence is circunstancial, you might have a chance. The peal deal is not a good choice in my opinion here. But if your want to plea deal the choice is yours?" or even if the evidence is more than circunstancial the attorneys saying "we just need to convice one juror. You are really sure you don't want to try?", especially if there is no DNA. And the defendant could be changed his mind. Doesn't seem unethical to me but I want to know what US attorneys have to say.

Is it unethical. Some may say yes but it’s not illegal. I can personally attest that I know many attorneys that have gotten guilty clients off when they have wanted to plead guilty to their crimes. That’s why attorneys have the motto “ step one, keep your mouth shut and ask for an attorney, step two repeat step one “.
JMO

 

[TL4S]

"supress as evidence in this cause any and all communications, confessions, statements or admissions, written or oral, made by him subsequent to his arrest".

Thank you! I guess it doesn't say anything about the validity of those phone calls, or any other statements, it only suggests that anything during the time in question should be suppressed due to the reasons listed within the memo. This is why I'm not comfortable just assuming any of the confessions are damning, even the phone calls, because at this point, we don't know. It's unclear to me if each confession needs to be listed specifically for individual suppression, or if a blanket suppression would cover it all, as it seems to be asked for here. Maybe if she denies this, they can make more specific motions to suppress for each confession?

 

[layer]

"supress as evidence in this cause any and all communications, confessions, statements or admissions, written or oral, made by him subsequent to his arrest".

IOW throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gotcha!
I suspect they are just making a record. Who can say what an appellate court will think? It is often mentioned that the PCA didn't include everything the P has. I wouldn't say it's safe to assume that the defense has no way of mitigating the other confessions since they aren't specifically mentioned here, they may not want to tip their hand to the state until someone is on the stand.

 

[WildHuncher]

Thank you! I guess it doesn't say anything about the validity of those phone calls, or any other statements, it only suggests that anything during the time in question should be suppressed due to the reasons listed within the memo. This is why I'm not comfortable just assuming any of the confessions are damning, even the phone calls, because at this point, we don't know. It's unclear to me if each confession needs to be listed specifically for individual suppression, or if a blanket suppression would cover it all, as it seems to be asked for here. Maybe if she denies this, they can make more specific motions to suppress for each confession?

They expend all their ammo on the suspiciously low-hanging fruit. My spider sense tingles.

 

[justtrish]

The D say "supress as evidence in this cause any and all communications, confessions, statements or admissions, written or oral, made by him subsequent to his arrest". They are trying to exclude all statements made by RA after his detention, including his confessions to his family, I think. The evidence of a psychotic episode is why they would be inadmissible and it’s the same for the statements made to guards or fellow inmates. They just don't made specifics about the other confessions and put the all the confessions in the same bucket because his alleged psychotic episode. The fact they just pick one confessions to talk in specific, makes me wonder if the other confessions are more accurate and damning and the sentence in their memo "The truth or falsity of Allen's statements are of no consequence to this analysis" makes me suspect that the other confessions are accurate. I think the timeline of the confessions and his medical records will be very important here.

EXACTLY!!

They want ALL confession excluded. They only go into any detail about the false ones, but don't even mention his wife or mother, but then they use the all inclusive wording about his communications to lump ALL confessions into one group. I don't think the judge will fall for it, but I'm sure they had to try.

This isn't about only removing the false confessions, it's about excluding them ALL.

 

[TTF14]

EXACTLY!!

They want ALL confession excluded. They only go into any detail about the false ones, but don't even mention his wife or mother, but then they use the all inclusive wording about his communications to lump ALL confessions into one group. I don't think the judge will fall for it, but I'm sure they had to try.

This isn't about only removing the false confessions, it's about excluding them ALL.

Do you think they all should be included?

 

[justtrish]

Do you think they all should be included?

I think they should be all included yes.

If he made false statements that were a result of some poor treatment in prison, then present all that evidence at trial. Also present the statements he made to his family and the written letters to the warden. Let all the statements come out in a timeline that shows exactly what happened when. If the defense is really going to be that others did this and LE is pinning it on RA, then let all the statements come out, let his mental health reports come out to show when he took a decline in relation to his statements, when he visited with his lawyers and so on. I don't think making false claims about the crime is nearly as damning as if he mad any truthful claims that only the killer would know. Anyone can randomly say, I shot them or I did xyz, but it would be unlikely that he would guess specific details.

I think how he says things matters too. Was he crying and sounding remorseful when he was talking to his wife, did he say things like I need to get this off my chest.. I did this, I did xyz. Tone of voice and other things being said can give a lot of context on if it is truthful or if he's just bsing. Same for the statements he made to others in the prison. What was he saying prior to that, what was the conversation they were having that lead him to start saying he shot them and other untrue things. How was it said and why was it said. Was he just ranting on or was he trying to get their attention and they were ignoring him.. then he says, I killed those girls, I shot them. Trying to get a reaction.

I think if we hear them ALL we would hear clear differences in not only the content, but how it was said and what else was going on to lead to the conversations being had.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Furthermore, RA hasn't had any actual private conversations with his attorneys from what it sounds like. Seems like there would, then, be a record of this conversation if it had happened. I think it's pretty unlikely.

That's not the case IMO. DOC only video recorded RA's very few visits with his D, not audio recorded them.

 

[Emma Peel]

Note: Repeating my comment to mrjitty with the corrected quote from mrjitty.
Sorry to all about the error - where somehow I quoted myself and not mrjitty in our conversation thread...thanks to mrjitty for noticing the error.

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.

Yes, I concur. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

I agree it leaves the "family confession(s)" (the only confession(s) the D and P have referenced in Court prior to this memo) in a non-specific group of confessions under incarceration to be suppressed.

The context (or purpose) of RA's "family confession(s)" and actual statement(s) we have not heard, and we can't understand. The Court, the D and the P better understand context and other facts in the sealed record.

Just one example: Was the "family confession" in the context of RA informing family that RA had confessed via the Warden without counsel?

The D raised the family confession at a hearing in court - labeled it a false confession, linked to prison conditions. They didn't just pull that out of a hat; the State likely had provided the family confession recording/transcript to the Court and the Defense under seal.

IIRC, We've see Gull find that she heard the Westville prison's testimony and is satisfied, that D is exaggerating, etc. After which, affidavits from prison guards hit the docket. After which RA is transferred from Westville to Wabash. After which Lebrato/Scremin bring the more prison abuse claims to the Court - repeating coercion and abuse claims/accusations that Gull had previously rejected. What prompted the move from Westville to Wabash? What reports, affidavits, etc. remain under seal as to confession matters?

Context is everything. That's proven in this case time and time again. One certainty in this case is that until trial, the public is missing mountains of facts, including context.

JMHO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Again, if I'm on the jury, this is the kind of thing that will bury RA. Isn't it curious that it seems like a logical defense strategy to the people who are already convinced that RA is the killer; while those who remain unconvinced see no logic in it at all? Wouldn't a sound defense strategy do basically the opposite?

What kind of sound defense strategy can the Defense even put forth?

Odinists Ritual Sacrifice - check, it's lost its shine now.
Not me, I wasn't there - won't work because we have witnesses and he admitted to being at the scene at the time, plus his own non coerced confessions.
Mental Defect - Nope he was a gainfully employed manager/Pharm Tech in a well known drug store with responsibilities. Had a paid off home and drove nice cars. Liked to socialize and play in pool tournaments at the local watering hole.

RA managed to function averagely to above average with these type of results IMO.

IMO He had a secret life/twisted desire that lead him to that Bridge and Abby & Libby that day. He ordered them 'Down the Hill' and then they were brutally murdered. It's really not as uncommon as people seem to think. 'Average Joes' get arrested for murders all the time without their families or anyone suspecting a thing. We could start a list a mile long here.

JMO