Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #183

[photographer4]

In some states, there are laws against it. New York and California are some examples.

N.Y. law outlines specific offenses for unlawful sharing of personal images

“Caroline’s Law” was first introduced after an EMT posted a murder victim’s photo to Facebook in 2009

www.ems1.com

Section 129 - Dissemination of copies of photographs of deceased taken by coroner as part of post mortem examination or autopsy, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 129 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 129 - Dissemination of copies of photographs of deceased taken by coroner as part of post mortem examination or autopsy, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 129, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

I’m sure there are in many places and it’s sad such a law is even needed. But it clearly doesn’t stop everyone.

 

[kae27]

Obviously I am a non lawyer. My background is in compliance- mostly financial and some legal.
I was seeing the similarities in Vanessa Bryant’s case which touched on negligence of key players, invasion of privacy and emotional distress from the limited spread of those leaked photos.
As a non attorney there appears to be similarities in misconduct and the fallout. AMO

OK. I've zero knowledge of Vanessa Bryant's case. I'm simply indicating how law works.

Edit: And clearly stating that there is no such thing as a legal case simply for "negligence," as you had asserted.

 

[somequestions]

I definitely believe he thought he had been ID’ed by one of the witnesses who saw him on the trail that day so he figured he better get out in front of that bullet. He worked in the community so an obvious assumption on his part somebody knew he was out there that day.

Moo

Maybe this is why Richard Allen confessed so many times to so many people? If Richard Allen knew the unspent cartridge had fallen out of his gun or that there was a potential picture or video evidence of himself walking across the bridge but went to speak with the conservation officer anyway, then he must be a dumb criminal.

How would he know he did not leave forensic evidence on the unspent cartridge like oil from his skin or fingerprints? Once Richard Allen found out later that there was an audio recording, he must not have been worried about anyone recording his voice either.

This is such a unique case because there is no denying that if he confessed information that only the killer would know, then he must be the murderer no matter how strange his actions after the crime might seem.

 

[photographer4]

Jack the Ripper's victims and 2 pictures of murdered innocent young girls are apples and oranges here. IMO

I have asked since the leak of these CS photos that God forbid those involved in the leak had a murdered child, would they like to see or know those brutal, nude pictures are online to live forever for any pervert or creep to look at??

That goes way beyond morbid fascination, it's CSAM and it's sick, perverted and against the law. IMO.

Abby & Libby are juvenile VICTIMS of a brutal double homicide. They deserve respect and this D team through their misconduct and its group of misfits and hangers on have taken that away from them, and in the process created even more grief and pain for the families.

MOO

So why then was Mw charged with misdemeanour theft and not possession or distrib of CSAM?? This has never made sense to me.

 

[girlhasnoname]

MOO still he needed to be evaluated. His attorneys could easily have had him evaluated.
Maybe they did and we dont know about it.

RA was under the physical care and control of the DOC, he would have definitely been evaluated after his alleged feces incidents and his refusal to eat or sleep. He bounced back to his affable non feces eating, sleeping and rec time self in time for the June 15th hearing for Motion to Transfer and Motion to Let Bond. Which the Defense btw decided to reschedule.

That is something Ricky couldn't keep up for any length of time, just long enough to try and explain his April 3rd phone call confessions to wife and mom and for the D to snap that ridiculous picture of RA sitting drooling, chained and in a dirty t-shirt. Oh the drama of it all.

All JMO

 

[Salah11]

RA was under the physical care and control of the DOC, he would have definitely been evaluated after his alleged feces incidents and his refusal to eat or sleep. He bounced back to his affable non feces eating, sleeping and rec time self in time for the June 15th hearing for Motion to Transfer and Motion to Let Bond. Which the Defense btw decided to reschedule.

That is something Ricky couldn't keep up for any length of time, just long enough to try and explain his April 3rd phone call confessions to wife and mom and for the D to snap that ridiculous picture of RA sitting drooling, chained and in a dirty t-shirt. Oh the drama of it all.

All JMO

Which funny enough the defense still have not addressed in multiple Franks. It’s almost like they simply can not explain those confessions away.

Moo

 

[AugustWest]

Obviously I am a non lawyer. My background is in compliance- mostly financial and some legal.
I was seeing the similarities in Vanessa Bryant’s case which touched on negligence of key players, invasion of privacy and emotional distress from the limited spread of those leaked photos.
As a non attorney there appears to be similarities in misconduct and the fallout. AMO

Vanessa Bryant sued Los Angeles County in that case. L.A. County is a government entity. The persons who took the pictures and shared them were government actors. The defense in this case are not government actors.

Further, there are several rules which shield attorneys from lawsuits such as those mentioned. They exist so that there will not be a chilling effect on attorneys putting forth rigorous defenses for their clients. In other words, why would an attorney rigorously defend his or her client if they were at risk of losing 8 figures as suggested?

 

[AugustWest]

In some states, there are laws against it. New York and California are some examples.

N.Y. law outlines specific offenses for unlawful sharing of personal images

“Caroline’s Law” was first introduced after an EMT posted a murder victim’s photo to Facebook in 2009

www.ems1.com

Section 129 - Dissemination of copies of photographs of deceased taken by coroner as part of post mortem examination or autopsy, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 129 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 129 - Dissemination of copies of photographs of deceased taken by coroner as part of post mortem examination or autopsy, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 129, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The statute quoted contains language which shows an exception exists: "(1) For use in a criminal action or proceeding in this state that relates to the death of that person." This shields attorneys from liability.

 

[steeltowngirl]

The statute quoted contains language which shows an exception exists: "(1) For use in a criminal action or proceeding in this state that relates to the death of that person." This shields attorneys from liability.

What about civil action? Does it shield YouTubers, or members of the public who might harass the families with shared photos? Noting the settlement between California’s CHP and the family of Nikki Katsouras.

CHP settles over leaked photos of woman killed in crash

CHP settles over leaked photos of woman killed in crash

www.latimes.com

 

[steeltowngirl]

In other words, why would an attorney rigorously defend his or her client if they were at risk of losing 8 figures as suggested?

A rigorous defense doesn’t have to become reckless.

jmo

 

[AugustWest]

What about civil action? Does it shield YouTubers, or members of the public who might harass the families with shared photos? Noting the settlement between California’s CHP and the family of Nikki Katsouras.

CHP settles over leaked photos of woman killed in crash

CHP settles over leaked photos of woman killed in crash

www.latimes.com

The law deals with instances where a government actor shares the images. The law allows for lawsuits in specific instances where a government actor shares the images. It doesn't apply to YouTubers or other members of the public.

A rigorous defense doesn’t have to become reckless.

jmo

I'm just sharing the rules.

 

[Betty P]

The statute quoted contains language which shows an exception exists: "(1) For use in a criminal action or proceeding in this state that relates to the death of that person." This shields attorneys from liability.

So, they may have known they were protected when they left those graphic crime scene photos lying in the open where anyone walking into the office could view and copy them. JMO.

Pardon members here from bringing this up, but it’s such an unusual event for us. As an attorney, can you say that most criminal law practices preparing for trial are this lax in handling horrific crime scene photos of murdered children? Apologies in advance if this question has already been asked and answered.

 

[marv hucker]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F6NxWdajU-LkXH4b9bCb6qfdFIVxgBke/view

So many questions!!
- the phone was pinged successfully at 5:44pm on the 13th of Feb on the day the kids were missing per point #10.

But it seems like the State had evidence of many other pings - 44 to be precise, but they didn't bother to tell the Defence until November 9, 2023?? What the heck? Why would they not?

Further, it would seem that there were 2 pings from Feb 13, 2017 - at 5:48pm & 7:16pm. (point #13).

How does the State explain their failure to tell the Defence this information?? Then point #22 states that the phone pinged AGAIN on Feb 14, 2017 at 4:33am. Clearly it wasn't turned off or out of the area at that point if it pinged the tower again, right??? So what happened? Did the kids (and the phone) leave the area and come back? Did the phone travel with someone in a turned off state and then get returned to the spot where it was found under the body? Did it get put in airplane mode and then taken out of airplane mode for it to ping again? Would airplane mode have prevented it pinging?

This is very weird so I hope the State has a darn good explanation for the entire situation!

The phone didn’t ping back for 11 hours hence the conclusion it wasn’t in a working condition.

Where’s the issue?

 

[AugustWest]

So, they may have known they were protected when they left those graphic crime scene photos lying in the open where anyone walking into the office could view and copy them. JMO.

Pardon members here from bringing this up, but it’s such an unusual event for us. As an attorney, can you say that most criminal law practices preparing for trial are this lax in handling horrific crime scene photos of murdered children? Apologies in advance if this question has already been asked and answered.

I don't have any information that they were lax in handling the photos. I also don't have any information that they weren't. All I have is a gentleman who has admitted to stealing these photos and distributing them to social media. I have no proof that the defense themselves distributed the photos to social media either.

ETA: I don't mind members bringing it up at all, I'm just trying to keep expectations down. The defense is likely not going to be found liable for the leak.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Vanessa Bryant sued Los Angeles County in that case. L.A. County is a government entity. The persons who took the pictures and shared them were government actors. The defense in this case are not government actors.

Further, there are several rules which shield attorneys from lawsuits such as those mentioned. They exist so that there will not be a chilling effect on attorneys putting forth rigorous defenses for their clients. In other words, why would an attorney rigorously defend his or her client if they were at risk of losing 8 figures as suggested?

So there's no way with the worded ruling of Judge Gull's findings that R&B, or MW could be potentially liable for the leaked CS photos with the very plainly worded gag/protective ordered from the Court?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Vanessa Bryant sued Los Angeles County in that case. L.A. County is a government entity. The persons who took the pictures and shared them were government actors. The defense in this case are not government actors.

Further, there are several rules which shield attorneys from lawsuits such as those mentioned. They exist so that there will not be a chilling effect on attorneys putting forth rigorous defenses for their clients. In other words, why would an attorney rigorously defend his or her client if they were at risk of losing 8 figures as suggested?

We definitely have a different understanding of the word rigorous lol. Rule 8.4 on Misconduct:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or

(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules

I see three here that applies to this D Team IMO.

 

[AugustWest]

So there's no way with the worded ruling of Judge Gull's findings that R&B, or MW could be potentially liable for the leaked CS photos with the very plainly worded gag/protective ordered from the Court?

Nope. Judicial findings may be evidence of such, but aren't considered established fact should an action be brought.

We definitely have a different understanding of the word rigorous lol. Rule 8.4 on Misconduct:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or

(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules

I see three here that applies to this D Team IMO.

Point me to the three and I'll tell you why they are or aren't misconduct. Further, those rules are for a bar association to use in determining whether or not to punish a member, not rules the public can bring a lawsuit over.

ETA: and again, I am not applying the facts of this specific case to the rules. My understanding of rigorous defense is not relevant, I'm simply stating the rule.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Nope. Judicial findings may be evidence of such, but aren't considered established fact should an action be brought.


Point me to the three and I'll tell you why they are or aren't misconduct. Further, those rules are for a bar association to use in determining whether or not to punish a member, not rules the public can bring a lawsuit over.

Not nitpicking, trying to understand. If the Bar found R or B guilty of any of these misconduct rules and they were sanctioned or fined or whatever combination, would that open the door to a party of this case filing a suit or would it just be over and done at that time? Thanks

 

[AugustWest]

Not nitpicking, trying to understand. If the Bar found R or B guilty of any of these misconduct rules and they were sanctioned or fined or whatever combination, would that open the door to a party of this case filing a suit or would it just be over and done at that time? Thanks

It would likely be over and done. I say likely due to the fact that one can initiate a cause of action against another for just about any reason they want. That is not to say it would survive summary judgment (failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted).

 

[vinayd]

I don't understand why the family can't bring a lawsuit for "infliction of emotional distress" or even "negligent infliction of emotional distress". Both of these are recognized in Indiana.