Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179

[zh0r4]

And somehow get the public to send them money. They meet that goal and then raise it asking for more money. That seems to be a pattern also in the past 5 years. MO

Richard Allen wasn’t arrested until 2022. The defense wasn’t appointed by the court/Judge Gull until November 2022.

What pattern with the defense and/or RA could have been going on for 5 years?

 

[FromGermany1]

Snipped from the linked article:

bbm

“The Carroll County Council has pegged the cost at the anticipated double murder trial of accused killer Richard Allen of Delphi at $2.1 million.

Councilors are setting aside $1,535,000 for personnel services, $530,000 for “other services” and $35,000 for supplies.

Last November, Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland told the council he might need to hire another prosecutor to work by his side in preparation of the case against Allen, who is accused of killing teenage friends Abby Williams and Libby German near the Monon High Bridge along the banks of Deer Creek on February 13, 2017.”

Source:

Delphi double murder trial costs pegged at $2.1M

Councilors are setting aside $1,535,000 for personnel services, $530,000 for “other services” and $35,000 for supplies.

fox59.com

What kind of drama would they all (state/defense) have made and how much money would they have had to spend and how many prosecutors would they have had to hire, if the alleged perpetrator was not a little CVS guy but someone with a high reputation?
Years ago, it seemed, as if there were a bunch of evidence, and DC and his subordinates were only waiting for the right name or face as the very last puzzle piece. After 7 years they have their puzzle piece and are overwhelmed. Who would have thought. MOO

 

[snooptroop88]

I haven't seen anyone here that vehemently believes RA is innocent. Speak up if I missed you!
Some want to make sure RA isn't being railroaded. Some want to see all the facts before they try to determine guilt. Some question the validity of some of the state's evidence and the quality of the investigation. I'm probably a combination of all those.

Agreed. I'm still mulling over what looks like a lack of DNA. I mean, look at BG. Where's the DNA? You're telling me that this rolling, broken-down looking sack of haphazard evil that I've come to know as BG left a pristine CS?? How is that possible? He had to have known there was activity on that phone, JMO, and he left the phone. So the murderer that left a phone behind did not leave behind DNA?? Multiple perps involved might explain that, but not much else would. Unless phone left there to taunt LE, I don't know. I know a lot of people think he just missed the phone, I don't see how he could have.

 

[sunshineray]

Richard Allen wasn’t arrested until 2022. The defense wasn’t appointed by the court/Judge Gull until November 2022.

What pattern with the defense and/or RA could have been going on for 5 years?

As the post I was replying to mentions, lawyers in general for others in general.

 

[mrjitty]

If anyone is interested, Murdersheet has a deep dive in the whole crowd funding and expert controversy. I would recommend even those who do not like MS, listen to it. (maybe at 2x speed)

Highlights:

• Detailed interview with 2 subject matter attorney experts about the ethics of crowdfunding - very interesting backgrounder.
• Analysis of what Gull has/hasn't approved. It's their view that Gull wants the defence to follow an invoice process for expert expenses. This may have been misrepresented in the fundraiser as to Gull not approving experts.
• The fundraiser is not very specific at all what you are giving money for, or how it will be administered - see the interview with the ethics experts above, about how detailed this can/should be.
• Their personal disgust with the fundraiser being promoted by defence surrogates on the Abby&Libby hashtag - which the family has reacted to.

What I am wondering about, is a month from trial, it seems quite late in the day to be at the engagement phase with critical experts? Perhaps those with trial experience can kick in here?

The Delphi Murders: Crowdfunding

Podcast Episode · Murder Sheet · 04/04/2024 · 1h 42m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[sunshineray]

I must have missed something...is DH now offically on the RA defense team? He seems to be running the show raising money for them. Isn't that odd since he's AB's (and BR's?) personal lawyer in a contempt case?

Attorneys for Delphi murders defendant say they must rely on online donations to pay for Richard Allen’s defense experts

“We’re trying to crowdfund to make it a fair fight,” attorney David Hennessy told 13News Tuesday.

www.wthr.com

It's the defense that's put the lid on motions requesting funds and for what purpose. There are hearings being done in private, just the judge and defense, no prosecution and records are sealed, requested that way BY the defense.

So the defense can now assert anything about those secret hearings and not be contradicted. They don't need to tell the WHOLE truth as to what they're requesting and why it was approved or denied.

Judge Gull is going by the book about all this. As in the other link above shows, in Allen County they don't have a special defense fund type-org that decides what county monies are given to defense council and for what. In Allen county it's the rule that the judge decides and she's under order, requested by the defense, not to disclose any of it.

It paints a bit of a different picture than the defense is carping about. IMO

Judge rules Richard Allen's defense's funding request hearings will be sealed

Allen's attorneys requested more money for his case last week. It's not clear how much money is being requested or all of the reasons why, but the document mentions "expert fees and expenses."

www.wrtv.com

 

[mrjitty]

I must have missed something...is DH now offically on the RA defense team? He seems to be running the show raising money for them. Isn't that odd since he's AB's (and BR's?) personal lawyer in a contempt case?

Attorneys for Delphi murders defendant say they must rely on online donations to pay for Richard Allen’s defense experts

“We’re trying to crowdfund to make it a fair fight,” attorney David Hennessy told 13News Tuesday.

www.wthr.com

It's the defense that's put the lid on motions requesting funds and for what purpose. There are hearings being done in private, just the judge and defense, no prosecution and records are sealed, requested that way BY the defense.

So the defense can now assert anything about those secret hearings and not be contradicted. They don't need to tell the WHOLE truth as to what they're requesting and why it was approved or denied.

Judge Gull is going by the book about all this. As in the other link above shows, in Allen County they don't have a special defense fund type-org that decides what county monies are given to defense council and for what. In Allen county it's the rule that the judge decides and she's under order, requested by the defense, not to disclose any of it.

It paints a bit of a different picture than the defense is carping about. IMO

Judge rules Richard Allen's defense's funding request hearings will be sealed

Allen's attorneys requested more money for his case last week. It's not clear how much money is being requested or all of the reasons why, but the document mentions "expert fees and expenses."

www.wrtv.com

This is how the defense has end run the gag order - using multiple attorneys of the attorneys

Judge Gull should have extended the gag order to them long ago, but i get why she hasn't.

This is IMO, but is covered by the latest MS episode I noted above. I am ethically opposed to it, but i get why this might be a clever PR strategy for future defence teams to use.

 

[mrjitty]

@mrjitty What a good question!

Thanks for the detailed response @AugustWest. I am always interested in what US attorneys have to say. Many aspects of US conduct and procedure are foreign to me!

I'll have to start by saying that I don't agree that deference should be given to a prosecution. I believe our (U.S.) system functions best when our adversarial system is in full swing. The defense checks the prosecution by offering a rigorous defense, and the prosecution does the best they can for the people they serve. Judges, in my mind, should be a completely neutral arbiter, with zero input in the factual basis of a case. Only input on the law, just as we envision Lady Justice with even scales and a blindfold over her eyes. Our Founding Fathers were incredibly smart to craft the documents they did. True genius. That said, I appreciate that many disagree, and the public needs to feel secure and safe from wrongdoers, as well as have faith that their government truly is working in a fair and just manner.

To be clear, i wasn't meaning the defence should show deference - they are simply bound by their professional ethics. Adversarial all the way otherwise! I meant as members of the public, we should show a level of respect for our institutions. Of course it has to be earned.

The corrosive and toxic nature of our trials, in my opinion, is a product of our current society and the way we consume news. We want instant gratification and expect our government to keep us informed of what their actions are at all times. Couple this with the way we use social media as a news source, unfettered and already containing bias (one way or another), and you get a less than optimal information space surrounding trials. I don't know the answer, but we may need to look to our European brethren and actually limit the amount of information pretrial that is out there. Our system simply wasn't designed for it; it was created in a time period where you might not know the outcome of a specific trial for months (trial on East coast, news to West coast). Further, we are becoming more and more polarized in our viewpoints. All you have to do is listen to news, and almost everything is "us vs. them;" democrat vs. republican, Christian vs. Atheist vs. Muslim vs. Jew, Ukraine vs. Russia, East vs. West. It's becoming ridiculous to me. Imagine what we could accomplish if we weren't constantly hating on each other. I guess that's the hippy coming out of me. Sadly, I feel this may be our new norm, until we remember that we work better with a diversity of viewpoints and tolerance in our hearts.

Thanks for this. Can't say I disagree.

 

[zh0r4]

What kind of drama would they all (state/defense) have made and how much money would they have had to spend and how many prosecutors would they have had to hire, if the alleged perpetrator was not a little CVS guy but someone with a high reputation?
Years ago, it seemed, as if there were a bunch of evidence, and DC and his subordinates were only waiting for the right name or face as the very last puzzle piece. After 7 years they have their puzzle piece and are overwhelmed. Who would have thought. MOO

Well, if the perp was someone like OJ Simpson…the prosecution/state had $800K/month from taxpayers; for a 9 month trial that would be about $7.2 million.

Meanwhile, OJ was paying his lawyers $50,000 A DAY, for 135 day trial. This would be about $6.75 million for OJ’s defense team and not including pre-trial, experts, or preparation, from my understanding. Just their normal every day lawyer fees. It’s safe to say he likely spent more than the state, but he was able to keep selling memorabilia during the trial up to $3 million worth.

I was in elementary school then so I’m not sure if the P or D in the case wrote books later but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Unfortunately, IMO, money seems to matter greatly to a defendant because money=resources. It can even help acquit someone who is likely guilty. Presumably, someone with no money doesn’t have much of a chance against the state, especially if they are potentially innocent and months of evidence has been lost.

OJ was acquitted of course.

AJMO.

 

[sunshineray]

This is how the defense has end run the gag order - using multiple attorneys of the attorneys

Judge Gull should have extended the gag order to them long ago, but i get why she hasn't.

This is IMO, but is covered by the latest MS episode I noted above. I am ethically opposed to it, but i get why this might be a clever PR strategy for future defence teams to use.

Well this same strategy is being used right now by a very high profile defendant...and making millions. Why would it trickle down into the system, a monkey see, monkey do-type attitude being fostered and proliferated . AJMO

 

[zh0r4]

I must have missed something...is DH now offically on the RA defense team? He seems to be running the show raising money for them. Isn't that odd since he's AB's (and BR's?) personal lawyer in a contempt case?

Attorneys for Delphi murders defendant say they must rely on online donations to pay for Richard Allen’s defense experts

“We’re trying to crowdfund to make it a fair fight,” attorney David Hennessy told 13News Tuesday.

www.wthr.com

It's the defense that's put the lid on motions requesting funds and for what purpose. There are hearings being done in private, just the judge and defense, no prosecution and records are sealed, requested that way BY the defense.

So the defense can now assert anything about those secret hearings and not be contradicted. They don't need to tell the WHOLE truth as to what they're requesting and why it was approved or denied.

Judge Gull is going by the book about all this. As in the other link above shows, in Allen County they don't have a special defense fund type-org that decides what county monies are given to defense council and for what. In Allen county it's the rule that the judge decides and she's under order, requested by the defense, not to disclose any of it.

It paints a bit of a different picture than the defense is carping about. IMO

Judge rules Richard Allen's defense's funding request hearings will be sealed

Allen's attorneys requested more money for his case last week. It's not clear how much money is being requested or all of the reasons why, but the document mentions "expert fees and expenses."

www.wrtv.com

Hennessy is pro bono, from my understanding.

From your first article:

RBBM

<snip>

“The Indiana Public Defender Council says judges are permitted to deny public defenders’ requests to fund expert witnesses, but those denials can create significant problems if they are not justified.
“If the defense counsel don’t have the tools that they need … they effectively cannot defend Mr. Allen fairly without having those resources available,” said IPDC assistant executive director Michael Moore. “For a judge to unilaterally decide those services are not needed, you don’t need these funds, is essentially creating a situation where there might be an unfair trial and a conviction that’s questionable.
<snip>

“It’s not a leveling the playing field issue. It’s a due process issue,” said Kay Beehler, an attorney who has served as both a prosecutor and public defender in Marion County. “You can’t prepare a murder trial with one hand tied behind your back.

Beehler said in more than 30 years of legal practice, she has never been denied funding for an expert she requested to help defend a client.”

Source:

Attorneys for Delphi murders defendant say they must rely on online donations to pay for Richard Allen’s defense experts

“We’re trying to crowdfund to make it a fair fight,” attorney David Hennessy told 13News Tuesday.

www.wthr.com

 

[sunshineray]

@mrjitty What a good question!

I'll have to start by saying that I don't agree that deference should be given to a prosecution. I believe our (U.S.) system functions best when our adversarial system is in full swing. The defense checks the prosecution by offering a rigorous defense, and the prosecution does the best they can for the people they serve. Judges, in my mind, should be a completely neutral arbiter, with zero input in the factual basis of a case. Only input on the law, just as we envision Lady Justice with even scales and a blindfold over her eyes. Our Founding Fathers were incredibly smart to craft the documents they did. True genius. That said, I appreciate that many disagree, and the public needs to feel secure and safe from wrongdoers, as well as have faith that their government truly is working in a fair and just manner.

The corrosive and toxic nature of our trials, in my opinion, is a product of our current society and the way we consume news. We want instant gratification and expect our government to keep us informed of what their actions are at all times. Couple this with the way we use social media as a news source, unfettered and already containing bias (one way or another), and you get a less than optimal information space surrounding trials. I don't know the answer, but we may need to look to our European brethren and actually limit the amount of information pretrial that is out there. Our system simply wasn't designed for it; it was created in a time period where you might not know the outcome of a specific trial for months (trial on East coast, news to West coast). Further, we are becoming more and more polarized in our viewpoints. All you have to do is listen to news, and almost everything is "us vs. them;" democrat vs. republican, Christian vs. Atheist vs. Muslim vs. Jew, Ukraine vs. Russia, East vs. West. It's becoming ridiculous to me. Imagine what we could accomplish if we weren't constantly hating on each other. I guess that's the hippy coming out of me. Sadly, I feel this may be our new norm, until we remember that we work better with a diversity of viewpoints and tolerance in our hearts.

I think, concerning the fairness of the funding being discussed, it's a two edged sword. Does one County have an oversight entity that decides how much and what for, as far as monies and experts/investigators/extra council and another County decides that a learned judge would know best about those things?

Either way has flaws and can be criticized. Something else that can be criticized are the fees experts charge. It'a a runaway free-for-all. Simply outrageous amounts sometimes. The State will usually cap the amount they're willing to pay for expert testimony, why can't a county do the same? Take a look at just how much these experts charge and pricing is only going to go up.

That's not the defense, prosecution nor the judge's fault. It's just what they deal with. The myth some are throwing around that the State gets so much more funding for experts is not necessarily accurate if they choose to employee cheaper experts. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

Well, if the perp was someone like OJ Simpson…the prosecution/state had $800K/month from taxpayers; for a 9 month trial that would be about $7.2 million.

Meanwhile, OJ was paying his lawyers $50,000 A DAY, for 135 day trial. This would be about $6.75 million for OJ’s defense team and not including pre-trial, experts, or preparation, from my understanding. Just their normal every day lawyer fees. It’s safe to say he likely spent more than the state, but he was able to keep selling memorabilia during the trial up to $3 million worth.

I was in elementary school then so I’m not sure if the P or D in the case wrote books later but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Unfortunately, IMO, money seems to matter greatly to a defendant because money=resources. It can even help acquit someone who is likely guilty. Presumably, someone with no money doesn’t have much of a chance against the state, especially if they are potentially innocent and months of evidence has been lost.

OJ was acquitted of course.

AJMO.

What evidence was lost? Those two men were cleared as suspects.

 

[Andieinsyd]

They will write a book win or lose

I suspect there is a Netflix crew following the D around (similar to Making a Murderer) and a massive pay day to come on release of the documentary.
Edited to add MOO

 

[sunshineray]

Hennessy is pro bono, from my understanding.

From your first article:

RBBM

<snip>

“The Indiana Public Defender Council says judges are permitted to deny public defenders’ requests to fund expert witnesses, but those denials can create significant problems if they are not justified.
“If the defense counsel don’t have the tools that they need … they effectively cannot defend Mr. Allen fairly without having those resources available,” said IPDC assistant executive director Michael Moore. “For a judge to unilaterally decide those services are not needed, you don’t need these funds, is essentially creating a situation where there might be an unfair trial and a conviction that’s questionable.
<snip>

“It’s not a leveling the playing field issue. It’s a due process issue,” said Kay Beehler, an attorney who has served as both a prosecutor and public defender in Marion County. “You can’t prepare a murder trial with one hand tied behind your back.

Beehler said in more than 30 years of legal practice, she has never been denied funding for an expert she requested to help defend a client.”

Source:

Attorneys for Delphi murders defendant say they must rely on online donations to pay for Richard Allen’s defense experts

“We’re trying to crowdfund to make it a fair fight,” attorney David Hennessy told 13News Tuesday.

www.wthr.com

So are pro bonos under the gag order?

 

[zh0r4]

The latest motion filed by Mcleland was a bit confusing, I have a lot of questions about the technology.

First, I’d like to ask how is it both true that the defense was incorrect about (3) other phones found during the alleged time of the murders in the area the murders took place, that no other phones were found in the area by any expert-then the next sentence say those people were cleared???

Who is there to clear if no one else’s phones were there??

Maybe someone can help sort this out for me? TIA.

“The Defense's conclusion that three devices were found in or near the murder scene location at the time of the murders and what geofencing data means is an inaccurate evaluation or interpretation that is not supported by an analysis by someone with specialized training or knowledge in geofencing data. The Defense's conclusion fail to consider the estimated range of those devices in the AT&T records or how the pinpoint data was collected. Further, although phones may have a pinpoint on a map that is in the area of the crime scene, the actual phone could be several thousand meters away. No geolocation expert assisting in the investigation concluded that cell phones were in or around the crime scene when the murders occurred. The Defense further fails to state that the owners of those phones were interviewed and cleared by investigators. This was certainly Sheriff Liggett's understanding when he signed the affidavit of probable cause.”

Pic related, page 4.


Also, is there no mention/citation from these expert assessments? It is says assisted, or certain agents that may be called as witnesses, but nothing about any reports? I’m so confused.

Source: page 4
States Response to Defense’s 3rd Motion for Frank’s Hearing

State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion

drive.google.com

 

[zh0r4]

For easier viewing.

States Response to Defense’s 3rd Motion for Frank’s Hearing (7 pages)











Source: States Response to Defense’s 3rd Motion for Frank’s Hearing
filed 4/3/2024 by Mcleland

State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion

drive.google.com

 

[sunshineray]

The latest motion filed by Mcleland was a bit confusing, I have a lot of questions about the technology.

First, I’d like to ask how is it both true that the defense was incorrect about (3) other phones found during the alleged time of the murders in the area the murders took place, that no other phones were found in the area by any expert-then the next sentence say those people were cleared???

Who is there to clear if no one else’s phones were there??

Maybe someone can help sort this out for me? TIA.

“The Defense's conclusion that three devices were found in or near the murder scene location at the time of the murders and what geofencing data means is an inaccurate evaluation or interpretation that is not supported by an analysis by someone with specialized training or knowledge in geofencing data. The Defense's conclusion fail to consider the estimated range of those devices in the AT&T records or how the pinpoint data was collected. Further, although phones may have a pinpoint on a map that is in the area of the crime scene, the actual phone could be several thousand meters away. No geolocation expert assisting in the investigation concluded that cell phones were in or around the crime scene when the murders occurred. The Defense further fails to state that the owners of those phones were interviewed and cleared by investigators. This was certainly Sheriff Liggett's understanding when he signed the affidavit of probable cause.”

Pic related, page 4.

View attachment 495158
Also, is there no mention/citation from these expert assessments? It is says assisted, or certain agents that may be called as witnesses, but nothing about any reports? I’m so confused.

Source: page 4
States Response to Defense’s 3rd Motion for Frank’s Hearing

State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion

drive.google.com

The geofencing data was not GPS, so therefore not as accurate

 

[Andieinsyd]

The latest motion filed by Mcleland was a bit confusing, I have a lot of questions about the technology.

First, I’d like to ask how is it both true that the defense was incorrect about (3) other phones found during the alleged time of the murders in the area the murders took place, that no other phones were found in the area by any expert-then the next sentence say those people were cleared???

Who is there to clear if no one else’s phones were there??

Maybe someone can help sort this out for me? TIA.

“The Defense's conclusion that three devices were found in or near the murder scene location at the time of the murders and what geofencing data means is an inaccurate evaluation or interpretation that is not supported by an analysis by someone with specialized training or knowledge in geofencing data. The Defense's conclusion fail to consider the estimated range of those devices in the AT&T records or how the pinpoint data was collected. Further, although phones may have a pinpoint on a map that is in the area of the crime scene, the actual phone could be several thousand meters away. No geolocation expert assisting in the investigation concluded that cell phones were in or around the crime scene when the murders occurred. The Defense further fails to state that the owners of those phones were interviewed and cleared by investigators. This was certainly Sheriff Liggett's understanding when he signed the affidavit of probable cause.”

Pic related, page 4.

View attachment 495158
Also, is there no mention/citation from these expert assessments? It is says assisted, or certain agents that may be called as witnesses, but nothing about any reports? I’m so confused.

Source: page 4
States Response to Defense’s 3rd Motion for Frank’s Hearing

State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion

drive.google.com

I think the State are referring to this statement from third Franks;
Third Franks
10. Said geofencing evidence was so important to somebody involved in the investigation that they created a map and plotted the movements ofthese persons, including movements that show that at least one ofthese persons was within 60-100 yards of the crime scene at a time while the murders would have been committed according to law enforcement's timelines. The phones, once again, had no connection to Richard Allen.

I think the State point out that the D have jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the geo data places the phones in or around the crime scene, when in fact they may be a long way away from the crime scene.
MOO

 

[zh0r4]

So are pro bonos under the gag order?

I don’t know, if he’s technically representing Rozzi and Baldwin?