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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
FrostedGlass said:
New motion from Nick. It will be an interesting read, I'm sure.
03/07/2024Motion Filed
Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records. 3rd Request for Mental Health Records.pdf
Filed By: State of Indiana
File Stamp: 03/06/2024
Click to expand...
Interesting read a little more information. Sounds like RA made additional admissions of guilt.
 
Cyber sleuth said:
Interesting read a little more information. Sounds like RA made additional admissions of guilt.
Click to expand...
I don't blame the State one bit for asking for the health records pertaining to his stay in Westville and Washburn. The Defense has long opined about the seriousness of RA's decline of mental health. Added to the emotional abuse he suffered by the Odin guards and others while incarcerated and insinuating it was the cause of his "incriminating confessions".

Judge Gull warned the Defense before the FM dropped, when she denied the State's request for the records a second time, that if they continued to insist on making these claims, it could open the door for the State to have access.

Looks like they've opened the door.

MOO
 
girlhasnoname said:
They were desperate. I don't blame LE for using any and all tactics, I do wonder if the FBI profiler suggested this form of public appeal? IDK

MOO
Click to expand...
There was a recent interview of a FBI profiler that stated that any pleas to the killer’s conscience in cases like these is futile. They do not care one bit about the victims. They care only about themselves. She felt the public statements were made to appeal to a family member or friend of the killer and had suspicions.
 
Cyber sleuth said:
There was a recent interview of a FBI profiler that stated that any pleas to the killer’s conscience in cases like these is futile. They do not care one bit about the victims. They care only about themselves. She felt the public statements were made to appeal to a family member or friend of the killer and had suspicions.
Click to expand...
Agree, maybe they were hoping someone close to RA would tip him in. I still wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't actually tip RA in, and that's what led to them looking at him again in 2022 verses running across the misfiled note from CO Dulin.

JMO
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1765748908028743680


Copy/Pasted below is Cara Wieneke (RA's appellate attorney) commentary on the Prosecution Motion for Health Records and exparte privacy rights of the Defense from the link above.

See the BBM below for some very pointed questioning of process in Gull's court once again.

We are blessed in Indiana as criminal defense attorneys because we have very liberal discovery rules. We can depose witnesses, subpoena records, and consult with experts generally of our own choosing. And when we do consult with experts, we do not have to disclose to the prosecutor who we consulted with or what they said.
Click to expand...

Rather, we need only disclose expert witnesses if they intend to testify on behalf of our clients.As a public defender appointed directly by a court, this can create a quandary. What if I need to consult with an expert, but I don't want the prosecutor to know just yet? How can I alert the court I need funding to hire that expert without the prosecutor finding out?
Click to expand...

There is an exception to the "no ex parte" rule in this circumstance. Public defenders seeking funds for a consulting expert can file a motion, ex parte, asking for the funds. Generally these motions are handled by the courts in one of two ways. Either the motion is filed on paper and delivered directly to the court, and the clerk notes the filing on the docket but does not otherwise scan a copy into the docket. Or the motion can be placed on the docket but access locked so that no one can view it, not even the parties.
Click to expand...

Why the secrecy? What's the big deal if the prosecutor sees the motion? Well, a couple of reasons. One, in many cases it may reveal the client's defense strategy. But second, consider this hypothetical. The State has an expert who is new and inexperienced but thinks your client's fingerprint was found at a crime scene. You decide to consult a very seasoned, very experienced fingerprint examiner. Your examiner agrees with the State's expert. In most cases, the State will never know this. But if the State knows who your consulting expert is, the prosecutor can depose your expert to see what the expert found. And now the State can use your own consulting expert against you. The State's case just became stronger.
Click to expand...

This is why the secrecy is necessary. It's not the client's fault he cannot afford counsel. If he could, he would never have to file a request for funds with the court. Allowing him to file it ex parte places him in the same position he would be in if he could afford private counsel.
Click to expand...

Last night in the #Delphi double murder case, the prosecutor filed a motion seeking #RichardAllen's mental health records. The prosecutor listed one of the reasons for the request as his review of the ex parte motion filed by the defense. The prosecutor even quotes the motion. How did he obtain access to the motion? Does this change anything for the defense? Can they still consult with this expert?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
twall said:
03/07/2024Motion Filed
VERIFIED MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE
Filed By:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
03/07/2024
Click to expand...

For anyone that might know:

If the Defense doesn't hand over the discovery as ordered, is that grounds to delay the 70 day trial date?

Why would they ask for a speedy trial if they are not able to offer discovery to the State?
 
Last edited:
IMO, confessions in an interrogation room by LE are a lot easier to overturn in court (even though those are recorded) than a confession over the phone to a close relative or friend would be. One is REALLY under duress. the other is not under duress and is happening at a time where he is not being pressured.

If RA managed to give any detail of the deaths that was not released publicly at that time that he didn't also get from his defense team in discovery, then he has very little chance to
 
Screenshot_20240307-120550.pngScreenshot_20240307-120603.png

How is it possible that The Defense asks to turn over discovery on the very day that the hearing is to take place?

I would deeply appreciate anyone that is willing to state reasons for why this is happening and what repercussions or benefits this has?

EBM TO ADD:

Defense is actually asking for a week extension, making March 14th the deadline. Is it proper to assume 4 days is enough?

I also noticed that the Defense is saying that this hearing isn't urgent/ imperative.

Are they trying to get the hearing dropped?
 
Last edited:
Ravenmoon said:
View attachment 488711View attachment 488712

How is it possible that The Defense asks to turn over discovery on the very day that the hearing is to take place?

I would deeply appreciate anyone that is willing to state reasons for why this is happening and what repercussions or benefits this has?
Click to expand...

The hearing is on March 18. DH is asking for a deadline of March 14.
 
twall said:
The hearing is on March 18. DH is asking for a deadline of March 14.
Click to expand...


Is that normal?
Is 4 days enough time for the State to get things done?
Is this strategic?
If the prosecutor were to do the same, would there be outrage?

There is so much going on, but nothing actually happening.
 
Ravenmoon said:
Is that normal?
Is 4 days enough time for the State to get things done?
Is this strategic?
If the prosecutor were to do the same, would there be outrage?

There is so much going on, but nothing actually happening.
Click to expand...

If the state would have turned it over when he was supposed to or in a more timely manner after the depositions it wouldn't be a problem. This is for the lawyers contempt, doesn't delay RA's proceedings at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 98 more.
Total: 280 (members: 99, guests: 181)

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
181
Total visitors
280
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,834
Messages
18,246,260
Members
234,465
Latest member
SlimeCrime
Back
Top