Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182

[Ravenmoon]

Hi @Ravenmoon,
Can we get a link for that? Screenshots are supposed to be accompanied by a link.
Thanks!
Knitty,
Moderator

Sorry!

Prosecutors in Richard Allen trial want alleged confessions heard by jury

 

[WildHuncher]

iv. Prevent the prosecution from using any data or information extracted from Liberty German’s phone in its evidentiary presentation.

Not a good look. Terrible optics.

 

[snooptroop88]

Now, I bet this is really, really heavily trodden territory already, and I know someone already mentioned this somewhere, at least once. Maybe dozens of times, I'm going to be sifting through for a while. But why'd RA go to a conservation officer instead of your standard cop or sheriff? I would think conservation officers are more dealing with animal control and the like, hunting licenses, people on trails after hours, clearing debris, etc. They're not really who you'd think of with a murder investigation. Is that maybe exactly why RA went with the conservation officer? Because if I were in his position, I'd be calling sheriff, ISP, maybe local cops. I wouldn't think of a conservation officer-- at all. Right, I'm seeing RA gave statement outside local grocery. Maybe that's just who happened to come along, but if RA was concerned enough to mention it, you'd think he would more go through ISP, local sheriff, local cops. I'm seeing conservation officers do carry guns, but from what I can see online, it's more in connection with their workings with wildlife.

Am now leaning heavily towards a conniving SK, and the conservation officer choice seems kind of interesting in this light. A murderer would unlikely far, far prefer his conversation be with someone as removed as possible from an actual "murder investigation" per se, but still in "LE." When I think "murder" and "trial" and "jail," I don't think "conservation officer." I think local cops and sheriff. I know someone mentioned this before, I can't remember who off top of head, apologies for overlap (still looking-- already mentioned by Ravenmoon and girlwithnoname, layer, Cybersleuth).

 

[Emma Peel]

As far as I know, we know only the substance of two of the confessions; those the defense spoke about in their Second Motion to Suppress.

We have to assume the defense left out the confessions RA made to his wife/family because they are specific and damaging. We also have to assume these new "16 and 8" confessions are specific and damaging, because the prosecution likewise didn't specify their substance. Therein lies the problem. We have no idea what exact verbiage and/or circumstances of the confessions actually were. Why draw conclusions on this uncertainty?

With respect, I’m not really feeling it’s necessary to assume anything re: confessions. (That’s a speculation too far for me.).

Likewise, I’d not assume 16 plus 8 is the number of confessions; it’s not clear, IMO)

IMO These 2 docs (the D’s Motion and now the P’s Response) re the suppression of RA “ confessions” disclose very little. The D’s give away an example that misidentifies the murder weapon. The P’s gives away nothing.

What I see is that the P had an opportunity here to counter the Ds motion with a solid example of an RA confession … yet they chose not to.

Instead, the defense chooses to accuse the D’s star witness as to the investigations‘s oversight(s) of being unethical - in public, without proof. (And THAT apparently speculative accusation lodged against the D’s witness … made front page news in about 1 hour from it hitting the docket.)

Also … an actual question for August: What’s the take away on the unspent bullet (missing-for-more-than-half-a-year) chain of custody? Is this important? What do rules of evidence say about this bullet casing’s admission as evidence with no chain of custody record?

Another question for August if I may? —— if the bullet casing has no chain of custody … does the PCA that relied upon it get reconsidered or .. voided?

JMHO

 

[AugustWest]

Psychosis does come and go for many who suffer from it.

But ...I mean...he admitted to,30 ish people!!!!

How many times to each of them???

RA is guilty by his own admission.
He even told the warden.

It is making more and more sense to me as to why the P is holding back on information.


AJMO

Fair enough and thanks for the reply @Ravenmoon

 

[EOA]

Forgive me if something like this has recently been suggested (I hate posting when I’m not fully caught up and right now am 23 pages in arrears) but…is it plausible that:

the BG in L’s video entered the Bridge from the private end while accomplice poufy-haired YBG (sketch) stood on the 1st platform at the public end, as a “guard” to keep all others besides the victims from crossing the bridge? IMO this contemplates a planned ambush involving multiple parties - but MOO I have long thought it made sense that A&L got 75% across and surprisingly passed BG who came on from the end nobody usually came on from. Then A&L got extra frightened when at 90% across they saw BG coming back towards them hence starting L’s phone video. YBG’s role was important such that no random hiker like BB unexpectedly takes a meandering 30-minute stroll across while an abduction is occurring or planned for nearby. YBG steps off as A&L approach the bridge start, and he stays off enough such that no one shows up in a wide-angle photo shot back from partially across and then no other person is visible forward either until that approx 75% across marker either.

This scenario IMO reconciles BB seeing the younger guy on the first platform yet he looks nothing like the older BG on video at the end of the bridge. It could also reconcile with the Freedom Bridge girls’ account if YBG were dressed similarly but not exactly like actual BG (or if YBG was in mostly black attire and a bit taller) OR perhaps if actual BG made rapid time and the Freedom Bridge encounter were a little earlier than the consensus timeline, he could’ve passed those 4 girls and still gotten all the way across before A&L began crossing. In the latter, YBG enters from on foot Mears some minutes before BB.

Lastly I think YBG could’ve legitimately been “responsible for the girls’ death in this role, as DC rather oddly described that 2nd sketch. All MOO

 

[somequestions]

Now, I bet this is really, really heavily trodden territory already, and I know someone already mentioned this somewhere, at least once. Maybe dozens of times, I'm going to be sifting through for a while. But why'd RA go to a conservation officer instead of your standard cop or sheriff? I would think conservation officers are more dealing with animal control and the like, hunting licenses, people on trails after hours, clearing debris, etc. They're not really who you'd think of with a murder investigation. Is that maybe exactly why RA went with the conservation officer? Because if I were in his position, I'd be calling sheriff, ISP, maybe local cops. I wouldn't think of a conservation officer-- at all. Right, I'm seeing RA gave statement outside local grocery. Maybe that's just who happened to come along, but if RA was concerned enough to mention it, you'd think he would more go through ISP, local sheriff, local cops.

Am now leaning heavily towards a conniving SK, and the conservation officer choice seems kind of interesting in this light. A murderer would unlikely far, far prefer his conversation be with someone as removed as possible from an actual "murder investigation" per se, but still in "LE." When I think "murder" and "trial" and "jail," I don't think "conservation officer." I think local cops and sheriff. I know someone mentioned this before, I can't remember who off top of head, apologies for overlap.

It is a good question about why Richard Allen would go to a conservation officer.

There is a YouTube video by R&M Productions called The Reckoning in Carroll County. From that video, I got the impression that the Conservation officers work closely with the Carroll County Sheriff's Department in this part of rural Indiana. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Richard Allen knows this and would think the Monon High Bridge area would be their jurisdiction with it being a forested area. Maybe it was some type of elaborate attempt by Richard Allen to say he came forward to say he was there and hoped no one would investigate for 5 1/2 years, but I doubt it.

The crime jurisdiction is different. The jurisdiction for Abigail Williams and Liberty Germans case ultimately rests with the Carroll County Sheriff's office since the crime happened on county property outside of town. I think the Carroll County Sheriff's office then got help from the Indiana State police and the FBI among other investigative agencies. Maybe the investigation was taken over by the state police later, but the jurisdiction was always the Carroll County Sheriff's office. In my opinion, it was always their(Carroll County Sheriff's office) case to solve.

 

[Boxer]

I believe all local LE of every type was brought in to do interviews of the public at roadblock check points and at public places everywhere, like grocery stores.

 

[Emma Peel]

Now, I bet this is really, really heavily trodden territory already, and I know someone already mentioned this somewhere, at least once. Maybe dozens of times, I'm going to be sifting through for a while. But why'd RA go to a conservation officer instead of your standard cop or sheriff? I would think conservation officers are more dealing with animal control and the like, hunting licenses, people on trails after hours, clearing debris, etc. They're not really who you'd think of with a murder investigation. Is that maybe exactly why RA went with the conservation officer? Because if I were in his position, I'd be calling sheriff, ISP, maybe local cops. I wouldn't think of a conservation officer-- at all. Right, I'm seeing RA gave statement outside local grocery. Maybe that's just who happened to come along, but if RA was concerned enough to mention it, you'd think he would more go through ISP, local sheriff, local cops. I'm seeing conservation officers do carry guns, but from what I can see online, it's more in connection with their workings with wildlife.

Am now leaning heavily towards a conniving SK, and the conservation officer choice seems kind of interesting in this light. A murderer would unlikely far, far prefer his conversation be with someone as removed as possible from an actual "murder investigation" per se, but still in "LE." When I think "murder" and "trial" and "jail," I don't think "conservation officer." I think local cops and sheriff. I know someone mentioned this before, I can't remember who off top of head, apologies for overlap (still looking-- already mentioned by Ravenmoon and girlwithnoname, layer, Cybersleuth).

Small town. could be they knew each other. They worked across the street from each other. Why not go report to the cop you know? Maybe that’s more comfortable. Also - possible the trails would a COs territory; pretty sure DD was involved in search and aftermath. JMHO

 

[Falling Down]

It is a good question about why Richard Allen would go to a conservation officer.

There is a YouTube video by R&M Productions called The Reckoning in Carroll County. From that video, I got the impression that the Conservation officers work closely with the Carroll County Sheriff's Department in this part of rural Indiana. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Richard Allen knows this and would think the Monon High Bridge area would be their jurisdiction with it being a forested area. Maybe it was some type of elaborate attempt by Richard Allen to say he came forward to say he was there and hoped no one would investigate for 5 1/2 years, but I doubt it.

The crime jurisdiction is different. The jurisdiction for Abigail Williams and Liberty Germans case ultimately rests with the Carroll County Sheriff's office since the crime happened on county property outside of town. I think the Carroll County Sheriff's office then got help from the Indiana State police and the FBI among other investigative agencies. Maybe the investigation was taken over by the state police later, but the jurisdiction was always the Carroll County Sheriff's office. In my opinion, it was always their(Carroll County Sheriff's office) case to solve.

I've mulled over the same hypothesis. He grew up in rural IN, and would know that DNR in IN is involved in cases going beyond poaching and other lower-level crimes, in.fact the DNR guy he spoke with has been involved in drug investigations in that general area of the Wabash R. Valley. Where the murders happened is Deer Creek Twp.

JMO

 

[AugustWest]

Also … an actual question for August: What’s the take away on the unspent bullet (missing-for-more-than-half-a-year) chain of custody? Is this important? What do rules of evidence say about this bullet casing’s admission as evidence with no chain of custody record?

Another question for August if I may? —— if the bullet casing has no chain of custody … does the PCA that relied upon it get reconsidered or .. voided?

JMHO

RSBM @Emma Peel

Please understand that I am tiptoeing when answering this question.

The rules of evidence are very generalized rules, not hard and fast and are not created to address specific issues. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 402 lay out the main intent of the rules of evidence.

401: Defines relevant
Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

402: basically just says relevant evidence is admissible; irrelevant evidence is not.

All other rules that flow from these two maxims deal with reliability of evidence.

So the default position is to include all relevant evidence. In the case of an item which lacks chain of custody, this obviously brings up a question of reliability. Rule 901 speaks to these types of issues, and says, in general: to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Rule 104 also instructive, but I won't delve too deeply into it.

A court (judge) might deal with this issue by excluding, or by allowing but giving a limiting instruction to the jury as to the lack of reliability of the evidence (basically meaning the judge would instruct the jury to give this evidence less importance to that particular item). It could also require it to be authenticated by introducing witness testimony as to the chain of custody.

It is a lot to read, but I think you would find the comments of the rules I listed as helpful (Rules 104, 401, 402, and 901):

Federal Rules of Evidence

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[AugustWest]

@Emma Peel

I didn't address your second question, but yes, if a piece of evidence that is found unreliable (and therefore excluded), it could cause a PCA to fail, but all other evidence would be considered. It would be a totality of the circumstances type judgment.

 

[Emma Peel]

RSBM @Emma Peel

Please understand that I am tiptoeing when answering this question.

The rules of evidence are very generalized rules, not hard and fast and are not created to address specific issues. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 402 lay out the main intent of the rules of evidence.

401: Defines relevant
Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

402: basically just says relevant evidence is admissible; irrelevant evidence is not.

All other rules that flow from these two maxims deal with reliability of evidence.

So the default position is to include all relevant evidence. In the case of an item which lacks chain of custody, this obviously brings up a question of reliability. Rule 901 speaks to these types of issues, and says, in general: to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Rule 104 also instructive, but I won't delve too deeply into it.

A court (judge) might deal with this issue by excluding, or by allowing but giving a limiting instruction to the jury as to the lack of reliability of the evidence (basically meaning the judge would instruct the jury to give this evidence less importance to that particular item). It could also require it to be authenticated by introducing witness testimony as to the chain of custody.

It is a lot to read, but I think you would find the comments of the rules I listed as helpful (Rules 104, 401, 402, and 901):

Federal Rules of Evidence

www.law.cornell.edu

Impressively long pas de bourree …
Merci / Thank you for the profesh explainer . I’ll read those links and hopefully understand some of it.

 

[zh0r4]

I'm not making decisions about what I think is or isn't exculpatory; I'm only explaining what the rules require. We have rules for a reason, they have come down from a long line of people going all the way back to England, and they exist for very good reasons, even if they don't seem apparent to most.

What is the typical time it takes for the state to turn evidence over to the defense? I have seen a former prosecutor say they handed over discovery ASAP to get the ball rolling, but what is a typical amount of time? What is the longest (but still reasonable) time you are personally aware of for discovery being turned over? Thank you for your input!

 

[somequestions]

If there is any information in any of Richard Allen's numerous confessions that only the killer would know, then it does not matter who his attorney is. He will probably be convicted and sent to prison for the rest of his life. This is why it is so important to hear the actual taped confessions that Richard Allen made.

I decided to try and check on when Ron Logan's search warrant was released to the public and then released by the Murder Sheet podcast. It looks like that happened in May 2022. That happened before Richard Allen was arrested in October 2022. Richard Allen would have known the manner of death. He also would know the manner of death if he were the killer too. Until this case is resolved, it is hard to figure out whether the mystery of who bridge guy is has actually been solved.

 

[mrjitty]

The D is asking for the following sanctions:

Adobe Acrobat

c. That the State of Indiana be sanctioned for its discovery violations in the following way:

i. This Court will instruct the jury that the prosecution received certain evidence that tended to exonerate the defendant on May 1, 2023 but failed to turn over that evidence for over 4 months and that said failure to timely produce that evidence to the defense was a violation of the rules.

ii. Permit the defense to play any video that was belatedly produced without objection from the State of Indiana.

iii. Prevent the prosecution from rebutting the evidence that Todd Click provided to the prosecution on May 1, 2023.

iv. Prevent the prosecution from using any data or information extracted from Liberty German’s phone in its evidentiary presentation.

d. That the prosecutor be ordered to explain in written form his reasons for delaying turning over the Todd Click evidence as detailed in paragraph 38 above; the reasons why he sent an email that is filled with false statements and that misled the defense; and the reasons he failed to turn over a massive amount of evidence, but then chose to turn that evidence to the defense between September 8, 2023 and October 6, 2023 just 4 days before requesting the Court to dismiss defense counsel from the case. This request is made for several reasons, but especially to preserve the record.

There are some obvious issues with this filing. First, as we discussed in multiple threads, at the time, P&D were conducting the usual pre-trial warfare about discovery, and so the Judge set a final deadline of 1 November for discovery to be completed before trial.

Quotes from your link

8. Between September 8, 2023, and October 6, 2023, nine months after it was due, the State of Indiana sent the defense 14 hard drives, 5 flash drives, 3 DVDs and several emails containing discovery disclosures, amounting to almost 4 terabytes of information.

So there had been a large amount of discovery before the Judges deadline. Note they don't say when it was all received. But the Judge was obviously aware of all this, which is why she she set the final deadline for 1 Nov. So in fact while it might be unfair (i really don't like all this discovery gamesmanship) in fact nothing was outside the deadline at this stage

9. Before the defense had a chance to review all of this late discovery (utilizing only 2 lawyers and 2 non-lawyers – 3 of whom were not able to work full time on the case) the prosecutor requested that the defense be disqualified on October 10, 2023 and the Court ordered the defense to stop working on the case on October 12, 2023. Accordingly, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Rozzi did not work on the case again until January 19, 2024.

This was clearly the order of the Court to stop them working and is not the fault of the prosecution. So clearly again, nothing is late at this stage according to the Court's timetable.

10. During that thirty-four (34) day timeframe from September 8, 2023 through October 12, the defense was only able to review a tiny fraction of the massive amounts of discovery that had been dumped on the defense 9 to 10 months after it was due.

This claim appears inconsistent with the defence's own filings. In the Summer they filed the 130 page franks memo with an exhaustive review of their theory of the case.

And in the writ of Mandamus they said they were fully ready for trial and asked that SCOIN mandate a speedy trial.

Now I appreciate there is subtlety here because they can't know what hasn't been discovered, but at that time (in the hiatus beginning October 12th) they weren't saying they had only reviewed a 'tiny fraction' of the massive amount of discovery they had been given. (what does that mean? 10%? 15%?). How could they be ready for the jan trial if they hadn't even reviewed the vast majority of the discovery?

 

[mrjitty]

Here is an example of what I am talking about with discovery in fact not being late according to the Judge's timetable

12. Additionally, it appears to the defense that the State of Indiana has belatedly disclosed tens of thousands of documents spread through many hard drives. For example, the State of Indiana first turned over the hard drive labeled “FBI case:7CPage 2 of 11 IP-2134732” to the defense on 10/31/23 (after Rozzi and Baldwin were off the case); and the State of Indiana turned over the hard drive labeled “ORION” to the defense on 12/7/2023 (after Rozzi and Baldwin were off the case). After Rozzi and Baldwin were reinstated, the State of Indiana turned over those two hard drives to Rozzi and Baldwin on January 30, 2024. While the defense should have had those hard drives on or before December 14, 2022, the defense did not receive those hard drives until January 30, 2023.

The FBI drive was clearly on time. Is the date for ORION simply wrong? B&R were not 'off the case' on 12 July????

I can understand an appeal court looking at all this and saying it's unfair to the defense - which is mostly the fault of the judge for setting a 1 Nov deadline. But how can it be fair to the prosecution for the judge to sanction them for meeting her deadline?

 

[mrjitty]

What is the typical time it takes for the state to turn evidence over to the defense? I have seen a former prosecutor say they handed over discovery ASAP to get the ball rolling, but what is a typical amount of time? What is the longest (but still reasonable) time you are personally aware of for discovery being turned over? Thank you for your input!

In the McStay case, new expert reports were discovered during the trial and in one case, a report was discovered as the witness took the stand.

The Judge had the patience of a saint.

My opinion only from watching cases. Discovery seems to be an endless battleground which it should not be.

 

[mrjitty]

Wouldn't you agree, or at least not argue with the notion, that psychosis comes and goes? That false confessions in fact do occur?

I've said this before, but why would the defense include any more information in a motion (which is written for a judge, not the public) than he or she would need to make a ruling on an evidentiary issue?

I agree they would not include the content, but don't you think they need to at least particularise the various categories of confessions, with timings, in their motion in order that it can be argued in Court?

Having seen both filings it seems there are actually 4 categories of confession whereas the defence only referred to two.

1. Inmate
2. Prison Guards
3. Wife/Family
4. Misc: Warden, Health Professionals, Police Officers

The defence appears to argue that RA suffered a psychosis due to an 'extended interrogation' and confessed to agents of the state. But their pleading does not explain how cat 3 applies? Ditto what is the context for cat 4? To my mind it is hard to see how the medical people are the same category the other 'agents of the state' but presumably there are arguments to be made here. They just didn't even mention this! Or what about police officers? Presumably this was not even in the prison then? When did these happen? etc

I am interested how you think such a motion should actually be plead so the judge has all the legal arguments

 

[FromGermany1]

Pg 3:
Adobe Acrobat

3. Most of the items found on the hard drives detailed above are not labelled in any descriptive fashion and many, if not most, of the items (consisting of documents, photographs, and video) have zero context as to what the significance of the documents/video/photographs are. Many of the items are not accompanied by a report or even notes that explain the reason such items are included in discovery. For example, one video shows a man that appears to be dead on a bed being turned over by what appear to be police. There is no context provided as to why that video is included in the massive amount of discovery or what this video has to do with the murders of LG and AW. That is just one example of thousands of examples the defense could cite of evidence with no context of why it is related to this case that the State of Indiana has provided to the defense.

bbm = Maybe, something like that below (Snuff film) and very much a possibility to be connected with a double murder on 2 teenage girls, when at their crime scene the imprint of a tripod was found? The connection makes sense to me immediately (maybe falsely). The connection "RA plus a group" is also immediately coming to mind. MOO​

Snuff film​

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki


A snuff film, snuff movie or snuff video is a type of film, often explicit, that shows, or purports to show, scenes of actual homicide.