Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181

[katydid23]

Well, it is a motion to supress, right?
I'm wondering this: If it is ruled that RA saying "it's over" in the first interview constitutes an invocation of right to counsel, would statements made during any subsequent questioning (including the second quiz session when he went to pick up the car) be inadmissable due to the fact that he was being questioned without his lawyer present?

But I think you have to say that you want a lawyer. Just saying 'I'm Done' is not the same thing. That could mean 'I'm done' because I'm tired, hungry, angry, late for work, whatever reason. IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

They are both an issue. Once he has invoked a right to counsel, they cannot question him until he has spoken with an attorney. That day, next day, next week. Must speak with an attorney.

RA did not say "I want an attorney". He said I'm done, yet he continued to talk. He was free to leave as he eventually did. LE is allowed to interview a suspect in a small interrogation room without windows. That is a standard police interview tactic, sitting close to the suspect, leaving 'for a second', etc. even lying to a suspect is allowed.

I find it especially intriguing that he was specifically most outraged about his wife and daughter hearing he was a suspect. Not that he was being accused of the murder of two young girls, but that LE was hurting his reputation.

I'm not worried that these interviews will be tossed, anymore than the confessions he made.

These are the Motions the D should have making long ago since trial starts in less than a month.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I believe if he had stated he wasn’t going to speak until he had the advisement of his attorney- defense would have included that. Jmo
Why didn’t RA ask for an attorney. That makes me wonder, he didn’t seem like he was aiding and assisting. He seemed to recognize his fish were being fried. IMO
He had managed to buy and pay for his home in full in 10 short years in Delphi working at a small town cvs. It wasn’t because he was broke. IMO
It also wasn’t because he was dumb. IMO he seems cunning. So why?

RA wanted to know what LE knew. He couldn't resist as we often see Defendants do in an effort to gauge what is happening in the investigation. Sly like a fox, but not smarter than LE, sorry Ricky.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

They know they aren't going to get a fair trial with this judge. She's probably going to disallow way more than she's going to allow in this trial. So, they have to prepare for an appeal based on what they suspect she will do (based on her own track record in this case). This is my opinion of their strategy. I could be way off.

I've said this before, but I'll say again...I do think RA was involved in some way, but I do not think he killed Abby and Libby. I think this needs to go to trial to get testimony out under oath so the rest of the evil doers involved get prosecuted. Why the State/LE have been so shady (or just negligent?)....I guess time will tell.

Respectfully, how do we 'know they aren't going to get a fair trial with this Judge'? Just because we may or may not agree with her rulings does not mean the D will NOT get a fair trial.

RA's guilt or innocence is all subjective to interpretation, yours, mine, and the Average Joe. I have no problem with anyone's decision, but it's only our opinion based on what we've concluded from the evidence we have so far. I've said many times I believe RA is guilty as sin, based on the coincidences that are too many to ignore, but that is just my interpretation.

Plus, we don't even have the response to the D's allegations from the State. The State hasn't aired their case in the public domain, media and Social Media, rightly so.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

If the facts as listed are accurate, I'd lean towards the exclusion of the 2nd interview.

As for the interrogation tactics - those seem to be fairly standard in the US? There are 100s of YouTube videos of these types of approaches. I really dislike the law in the US - see David Simon's excellent book Homicide on Miranda. I much prefer the UK law. But it is what it is.

Bottom line, don't speak to law enforcement without your lawyer kids.

 

[mrjitty]

Absolutely could, and not a dumb question. The most common type of scenario is one simply buckles under the pressure of a non-custodial interrogation and confesses. The police won't let you walk out that door. It is wise for law enforcement to always, always, always advise of rights whether custodial or not, for this exact reason.

Exactly! Not doing rights at the start was dumb and bad in my opinion - precisely because you might cross over, exactly at a time when you don't want to do rights!

My guess is they just decided to see if they could crack him - probably the interview is worthless anyway

 

[mrjitty]

It has always helped me to remember that these motions are not written with the general public in mind. These motions are written with a target audience of one person - the judge. The authors don't want to give away any unnecessary information, only that which helps a judge make a finding of law. Spreading more information than needed only works to the detriment of the defense; they don't want the world to know the substance of these confessions. They could be extremely damning or they could be innocuous, and we won't know until trial comes. But they know they only need to share enough information so that the judge can make a finding of law.

At last we are on to the serious business of trial where they are trying to get everything excluded that they can. As raised by Wieneke, upthread, it is however quite late in the day to get these hearings through!

 

[FrostedGlass]

Page 10
JH: I am not on video
RA: Neither am I.
JH: Four or five witnesses didn’t see me out there
RA: Me either.

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf

RA already admitted he saw people on the trail that day : he knows they saw him. He just dug in here and refusing to admit the writing is in the wall. IMO
No one can convince me this is RA “attempting to assist” LE.IMO this is attempting to evade charges.
Lying liars lie. JMO.

He admitted to seeing 3 girls and they saw him.
He didn't admit to 4 or 5 because there weren't 4 or 5.
According to the P, there were 4 girls in the group, plus BB, plus Muddy & Bloody = 6 witnesses
Why the discrepancy?

 

[FromGermany1]

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf
Reading the paragraph where RA says "I'm done". I think this is a matter of convenience. Could be my imagination but I picture this as whatever was on his phone he had to create a distraction. He is worried about his reputation and even accuses the cop of groping him. This is the kind of scene you cause to get up and leave. IMO

Also wondering what documents they had.. phone data?

SBM:

“It’s over. I was perfectly fine. I was cooperating.
I was going to give you my phone and then, you know, when you
started reading all these documents – that’s at the – here’s my thing
is. I feel like you guys think I done this. So, I’m done."

SBM:
"leave my reputation out if it. So you do what you need to do, and then,
like I said, when you do find this guy, I’ll expect the apology.” Rick
then described how police were trying to ruin his reputation by
accusing him of the murders in public, even groping him as they
patted him down in the street.

Sounds pretty confident. I wonder.

 

[Salah11]

He admitted to seeing 3 girls and they saw him.
He didn't admit to 4 or 5 because there weren't 4 or 5.
According to the P, there were 4 girls in the group, plus BB, plus Muddy & Bloody = 6 witnesses
Why the discrepancy?

I guess we are looking for a different answer than he was off to murder two vulnerable girls and he was slightly distracted?

Moo

 

[TL4S]

Ran across this link this morning. I haven't read it yet.

https://www.in.gov/isp/files/Custodial-Interrogations.pdf

 

[mrjitty]

What is interesting is the selective quotes read positively for the Factually Innocent Rick narrative that his lawyers have been building. So I wonder why they don't want it in evidence?

I am guessing they need interview 1, otherwise they have no evidence of the early arrival/departure - unless the defendant takes the stand.

 

[TL4S]

What is interesting is the selective quotes read positively for the Factually Innocent Rick narrative that his lawyers have been building. So I wonder why they don't want it in evidence?

I am guessing they need interview 1, otherwise they have no evidence of the early arrival/departure - unless the defendant takes the stand.

I'm not convinced they have a great argument to get this 2nd interview suppressed, unless not getting a signed waiver at that particular location and time will be a problem. I'm not clear on the rules regarding this.

It seems more about adding to the laundry list of missteps by LE. I really hope the trial brings clarity to all the claims the D have made along the way. Jmo.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I find it especially intriguing that he was specifically most outraged about his wife and daughter hearing he was a suspect. Not that he was being accused of the murder of two young girls, but that LE was hurting his reputation.

If RA is BG, then DC nailed it in 2019:
“Directly to the Killer, who may be in this room: We believe you were hiding in plain sight. For more than 2 years, you never thought we would shift gears to a different investigative strategy. But we have. We likely have interviewed you or someone close to you. We know this is about power to you, and you want to know what we know. And one day, you will. A question to you: What will those closest to you think of you when they find out that you brutally murdered two little girls? Two children! Only a coward would do such a thing. We are confident that you have told someone what you have done, or at the very least they know because of how different you are since the murders.”

@4:03

 

[vinayd]

If RA is BG, then DC nailed it in 2019:
“Directly to the Killer, who may be in this room: We believe you were hiding in plain sight. For more than 2 years, you never thought we would shift gears to a different investigative strategy. But we have. We likely have interviewed you or someone close to you. We know this is about power to you, and you want to know what we know. And one day, you will. A question to you: What will those closest to you think of you when they find out that you brutally murdered two little girls? Two children! Only a coward would do such a thing. We are confident that you have told someone what you have done, or at the very least they know because of how different you are since the murders.”

@4:03

He was visibly shaken and upset having to do this presser. Person behind him (can't remember his name- TL?) his face is red with embarrassment.

 

[steeltowngirl]

If the facts as listed are accurate, I'd lean towards the exclusion of the 2nd interview.

As for the interrogation tactics - those seem to be fairly standard in the US? There are 100s of YouTube videos of these types of approaches. I really dislike the law in the US - see David Simon's excellent book Homicide on Miranda. I much prefer the UK law. But it is what it is.

Bottom line, don't speak to law enforcement without your lawyer kids.

Fortunately, I’ve never been in a police interrogation room, but every crime show I have seen depicts it as described in the document. If I were called in, I would not expect a large, windowed room, nor would I expect they would go find a detective who is as short as I am. I would expect to feel intimidated.

It was part of a murder investigation, not an afternoon tea party.

jmo

 

[mrjitty]

Fortunately, I’ve never been in a police interrogation room, but every crime show I have seen depicts it as described in the document. If I were called in, I would not expect a large, windowed room, nor would I expect they would go find a detective who is as short as I am. I would expect to feel intimidated.

It was part of a murder investigation, not an afternoon tea party.

jmo

Yes - see for example the much lauded Chris Watt's interrogation.

 

[vinayd]

Fortunately, I’ve never been in a police interrogation room, but every crime show I have seen depicts it as described in the document. If I were called in, I would not expect a large, windowed room, nor would I expect they would go find a detective who is as short as I am. I would expect to feel intimidated.

It was part of a murder investigation, not an afternoon tea party.

jmo

Agreed. He is lucky there was even a small window. (ETA- ok there was NO window).
I've watched countless interrogations on youtube. Someone posted the SOP for interrogations and that was a good read. I'm now thinking this won't be thrown out. I'm even more confident his civil rights weren't violated.

 

[TL4S]

I think it's likely that LE waited for their ballistics report before telling RA he could come in to pick up his vehicle. Whether or not JH screwed up with the Mirandizing, IDK... that's for the judge to figure out. But I'm really curious how much weight that bullet carries to the State's case and what the experts will say.

ETA: JH's "you're guilty of something" comment sort of brings me back to NMcL saying they have "good reason to believe" others are involved.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Yes - see for example the much lauded Chris Watt's interrogation.

Oh.. the CW interview. Who can forget the loud clock on the wall?
Tick tock. Tick tock. Tick tock.