Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #180

[girlhasnoname]

IOW, while the D might have tried to capitalize on the "self-discrediting" bogus confessions, they're just hoping no one notices when recordings of RA making non-bogus confessions are played in court? This is the strategy?

It will certainly lesson the impact of the first set of confessions to wife and mom. Do you really not see that as a viable strategy? What else are the D going to do to try and diminish the impact?

Not arguing, just pointing out that there's not a lot of options for the D to try and discredit those, except to say RA had a psychotic break and went around confessing because he wasn't in his right mind. That is clearly a logical strategy, at least to me.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Right but they set out the context for 2 categories of confession in detail, and bring the precedents as to why they should be excluded. The phone confessions, they don't even mention, let alone the context or basis for exclusion. That is important, because the phone confessions are not made to 'agents of the state' per their pleading.

So I think they could make arguments, but if they don't actually make them, it is hard to see why the Judge would exclude those confessions. Maybe the defence doesn't believe they have any chance to get those ones excluded?

It's really quite odd to me.

There is no way IMO that those recorded confession won't come in as evidence.

RA made those omissions freely to family members on a recorded/monitored line, not being in LE custody, not being held down with a gun pointed at his head.

RA, even according to his own Defense, had been a 'model detainee' from the time he was booked until April-ish when the big State Discovery Dump happened. The D didn't claim mental break down or psychosis before then.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Just catching up on the action.

One minute RA's a criminal genius eating feces, and the next, he's a dumb schmuck yapping about his CSA in a population that's happy to shank CSA inmates.

Such a versatile avatar this BG = RA character and all his speculative adventures.
Reminds me of a video game.

JMHO

Or a deviant child murderer playing a role in a fight for his freedom.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

From motion to suppress:

The statements were involuntary, and thus obtained in violation of the
following:

a. Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
b. Sixth Amendment of United States Constitution;
c. Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and
d. Article I, Sections 12, 13, and 14 of the Indiana Constitution.

From Indiana Law Journal: THE SUBJECTIVE STANDARD OF VOLUNTARINESS Involuntary confessions are clearly inadmissible in Indiana by virtue of the following statute: "The confession of a defendant made under inducement, with all the circumstances, may be given in evidence against him, except when made under the influence of fear produced by threats or by intimidation or undue influence; but a confession made under inducement is not sufficient to warrant a conviction without corroborating evidence."

More: Negative inducements to confess are inducements such as physical force executed upon the accused, threats, deprivation of food and sleep, etc. Undoubtedly, all jurisdictions hold that confessions obtained by such means are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

More: The law presumes that an insane person can commit no rational, voluntary act; he has no capacity to make a rational decision; nor can he know of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the confession of an insane person is a nullity.

So was he tortured in prison into a confession, basically? My guess is no. The conditions he has been kept under are certainly something that need to be addressed, but I don't think the issues I have with his conditions go to admissibility of the confessions in the legal context laid out. Is he crazy? Or is this all conjured up? "...he has no capacity to make a rational decision; nor can he know of his constitutional rights" He made sure he got his attorneys of choice back after JG removed them. If he had no capacity to "make a rational decision," the judge's decision for removal should have stood. RA seems very aware of his constitutional rights.

Personally, I think him taking those particular attorneys back is the act of someone irrational, but MOO. I really mean it when I say he'd have been far better off with Lebrato. I would think the confessions may well be allowed in, I don't give them much weight regardless. But the D must because they're trying to get erroneous confessions thrown out in the hopes of getting other undiscussed confessions thrown out, so my guess is the undiscussed confessions may be damningly accurate. Whatever about the confessions, I do suspect RA has suffered civil rights violations. I heard a YouTuber noting Heuermann, Kohberger, they're not all shackled up and being led around like this. They're demanding vegan meals, sporting suits, and complaining about the lack of butter. Agreed. Even if RA's guilty as sin, this is a real concern. And he hasn't even been convicted. I think he will be, but it's irrelevant to what's happening now. And maybe he won't be convicted. What then?

Great post!

One problem relating to the points you raise about the prison conditions is the judge already made findings about those at the safekeeping hearing - those findings are on the record and adverse to the defense. So I wonder if the defence won't be able to relitigate the conditions.

The allegation re psychosis is new - as they now cite evidence. So they should be able to raise that point fresh.

 

[snooptroop88]

Right but they set out the context for 2 categories of confession in detail, and bring the precedents as to why they should be excluded. The phone confessions, they don't even mention, let alone the context or basis for exclusion. That is important, because the phone confessions are not made to 'agents of the state' per their pleading.

So I think they could make arguments, but if they don't actually make them, it is hard to see why the Judge would exclude those confessions. Maybe the defence doesn't believe they have any chance to get those ones excluded?

It's really quite odd to me.

Setting things up to exclude the other confessions here, maybe: "The proper standard under the Indiana Constitution is whether the confession was 'freely self-determined and the product of rational intellect and free will.' Hurt v. State, 594 N.E.Zd 1212, 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). That statement doesn't even mention LE or interrogation. That's big and broad with lots of wiggle room. RA's in a government facility on a phone monitored (?) by government personnel and funded through the government, with prison personnel basically involved in every aspect of his life. They might try to say that's coercion enough, and he was just overwhelmed by his circumstances. I don't really think anyone's going to buy that. Lots of people would be overwhelmed by the prison experience generally, these many overwhelmed people aren't on their phone calls confessing heinous crimes multiple times to loved ones. So that means D is going to have to get into the "nuts and bolts" of how "Rick" figured out these terrorizing conspirators in prison were part of an Odinist plot, and how they communicated to him their desire that he start confessing. I don't see that in the Franks. The details of that are not there. I'm just getting "patches." I'm not getting "confess or else," I'm not getting "we're Odinists." You'd need more background or more interactions with these supposed conspirators against "Rick" to connect the dots. In 136 pages, I would have thought they'd be connected already.

In the meantime while we wait to see what the D's up to with the phone confessions, D's getting pretty widespread coverage right now of those false confessions from "Rick," and I'm sure the D's glad for that attention. It makes "Rick" look completely crazy and extremely sympathetic. Nobody likes the idea of a grown man drinking out of a toilet bowl like a poodle. I don't like it, either, and if he really is gone this crazy, it's tragic. But if he's not crazy and that's an act, it's going to be a tragedy for everyone BUT "Rick" if he's not convicted. When I was in high school, they used to tell us that if someone tried to abduct/attack you, pretend you're crazy. Eat grass, talk gibberish, throw things. It's not that big a leap to where he might be now. I'm pretty average intelligence, if I can see an advantage for him in that behavior in his situation, I'm sure he could, too. THAT is nonetheless almost beyond belief to me if it's happening. (MOO)

 

[girlhasnoname]

RA = BG = Killer(s)

I had a multi paragraph post citing my supporting theories, but I just erased it because I'm just too tired. LOL

We'll have to wait and see what the trial brings. Not the FM, or supposed deposition interpretations, but sworn witnesses on the stand under oath from both the Prosecution and Defense.

Please, please let May 13th get here already.

MOO

 

[layer]

Do you really not see that as a viable strategy?

Again, if I'm on the jury, this is the kind of thing that will bury RA. Isn't it curious that it seems like a logical defense strategy to the people who are already convinced that RA is the killer; while those who remain unconvinced see no logic in it at all? Wouldn't a sound defense strategy do basically the opposite?

 

[TL4S]

Right but they set out the context for 2 categories of confession in detail, and bring the precedents as to why they should be excluded. The phone confessions, they don't even mention, let alone the context or basis for exclusion. That is important, because the phone confessions are not made to 'agents of the state' per their pleading.

So I think they could make arguments, but if they don't actually make them, it is hard to see why the Judge would exclude those confessions. Maybe the defence doesn't believe they have any chance to get those ones excluded?

It's really quite odd to me.

I'm confused about the D's phone confessions omissions as well, but I'm assuming there has to be a reason for it. Those calls are on record already, from NMcL's filing and the D's statements regarding them at the June hearing, really downplaying them.

They weren't trying to get them suppressed, at that point, obviously, so I do understand it's questionable why they didn't include them in this motion to suppress. There's no way JG would ever suppress those, though, imo, and I'm not trying to say she's bias. She's been clear about her finding his prison conditions to be perfectly acceptable, even better than other inmates, so there's no going back from there.

Maybe there will be another motion to suppress coming, specially for those phone calls. This motion was covering the state actors, so maybe they will treat them separately? Or maybe the D doesn't care if they are evidence because they aren't helpful to the State? Or maybe they'll finally throw their hands up and plead since he's already screwed himself with those phone confessions? Idk... obviously IANAL.

 

[susane7]

The D say "supress as evidence in this cause any and all communications, confessions, statements or admissions, written or oral, made by him subsequent to his arrest". They are trying to exclude all statements made by RA after his detention, including his confessions to his family, I think. The evidence of a psychotic episode is why they would be inadmissible and it’s the same for the statements made to guards or fellow inmates. They just don't made specifics about the other confessions and put the all the confessions in the same bucket because his alleged psychotic episode. The fact they just pick one confessions to talk in specific, makes me wonder if the other confessions are more accurate and damning and the sentence in their memo "The truth or falsity of Allen's statements are of no consequence to this analysis" makes me suspect that the other confessions are accurate. I think the timeline of the confessions and his medical records will be very important here.

 

[mrjitty]

The D say "supress as evidence in this cause any and all communications, confessions, statements or admissions, written or oral, made by him subsequent to his arrest". They are trying to exclude all statements made by RA after his detention, including his confessions to his family, I think. The evidence of a psychotic episode is why they would be inadmissible and it’s the same for the statements made to guards or fellow inmates. They just don't made specifics about the other confessions and put the all the confessions in the same bucket because his alleged psychotic episode. The fact they just pick one confessions to talk in specific, makes me wonder if the other confessions are more accurate and damning and the sentence in their memo "The truth or falsity of Allen's statements are of no consequence to this analysis" makes me suspect that the other confessions are accurate. I think the timeline of the confessions and his medical records will be very important here.

I agree there is apparently this aspect to it @susane7 , but also IMO this is not how anything works. You can't ask the court to suppress any and all confessions without mentioning the differing context of the worst ones or even indicating that they exist? How can the prosecution respond to your argument if you don't make one? We saw Baldwin try this in the hearing about dismissal and the Judge shot him down. He wasn't allowed to question the witness about issues he had not pled in his motion.

And I agree they apparently open the door for some of the statements by Allen to be true - but just unconstitutional.

As ever, I am suspicious this is more for the Gallery than the Judge or the appeal Judge. If it was for the appeal Judge, why isn't everything in there? or is there going to be a special second motion about the other ones?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Here’s what keeps me questioning the validity of this “psychotic” episode. RA was fine, well mannered and helpful from the time of his incarceration until March 24th per defense. They dropped his discovery off then but we are lead to believe he didn’t see it until after his confessions to his mother and wife
Then we know he confessed to his wife and mother on April 4, 2023, multiple times. Defense filed an emergency order to transfer safekeeping immediately after.
At some point thereafter he sees the discovery.
The latest franks states his confessions spanned from mid March to June. They don’t give us clear dates on his most crazy behavior. Yet they also pointed out that he met with his wife for a social visit in May and was fretting because he wasn’t allowed to use the nearby vending machines.
Are we to believe he showed up to this personal visit with feces smeared all over him? Or did he have the wherewithal to clean himself up?

We know he had a meeting in April where he was lucid enough to ask about his family. (Also in franks)
He was sane enough to be working out, doing crossword puzzles and reading per the rules warden during the June hearing.
JMO but this seems extremely fishy. He couldn’t be having an episode during all those confessions spanning March -June yet otherwise acting normal when he wanted.
IMO he wholeheartedly confessed and was ready to plea and then defense persuaded him against it.
If his mental break was real it was due to being put back in the ledge again when a plea would have given him relief. And it certainly wouldn’t have been ongoing for 3 months. JMO

 

[susane7]

I agree there is apparently this aspect to it @susane7 , but also IMO this is not how anything works. You can't ask the court to suppress any and all confessions without mentioning the differing context of the worst ones or even indicating that they exist? How can the prosecution respond to your argument if you don't make one? We saw Baldwin try this in the hearing about dismissal and the Judge shot him down. He wasn't allowed to question the witness about issues he had not pled in his motion.

And I agree they apparently open the door for some of the statements by Allen to be true - but just unconstitutional.

As ever, I am suspicious this is more for the Gallery than the Judge or the appeal Judge. If it was for the appeal Judge, why isn't everything in there? or is there going to be a special second motion about the other ones?

Oh I agree. They want to put all the confessions in the same bucket because his alleged psychotic episode but didn't mention the different circunstances of them all. I just wanted to say they are trying to exclude all confessions. This strategy doesn't make sense for the appeal IMO but I don't know their strategy. I don' know if they feel like they have their hands and feets tied. RA doesn't make things easy for them.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Just catching up on the action.

One minute RA's a criminal genius eating feces, and the next, he's a dumb schmuck yapping about his CSA in a population that's happy to shank CSA inmates.

Such a versatile avatar this BG = RA character and all his speculative adventures.
Reminds me of a video game.

JMHO

Exactly the type of versatility that would aid a cold-blooded killer to hide in plain sight.

The ability to prey on vulnerable teens, commit murder, then sit down at the family dinner table each night without batting an eyelash.

I wish it were only a video game.

jmo

 

[TTF14]

Oh I agree. They want to put all the confessions in the same bucket because his alleged psychotic episode but didn't mention the different circunstances of them all. I just wanted to say they are trying to exclude all confessions. This strategy doesn't make sense for the appeal IMO but I don't know their strategy. I don' know if they feel like they have their hands and feets tied. RA doesn't make things easy for them.

In my uneducated opinion, they should allow all or none. If one of the confessions "gets it right" (i.e. they were stabbed) and the others don't, it's shady to allow only the one that "fits" and not the others. Maybe by asking for all to be suppressed they are counting on Judge Gull only allowing the ones mentioned in the memo be suppressed but letting the other(s) in, and this is an appellate strategy?

Also, I do believe he could have been suffering acute psychosis from a number of factors, including the inconsistent (and maybe worse) meds.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I think we will have a lot of answers to the speculation about his actions when we see his list of medications and when they were administered.

He can be good when he's off of a particular med and really wonky when he's on. This is one more thing on the very long list of things we just don't know.

As far as RA fretting about not being able to use the vending machine, maybe his wife wanted something to drink and a snack after her drive up there.

 

[layer]

IMO he wholeheartedly confessed and was ready to plea and then defense persuaded him against it.

Why? Are there numerous cases of lawyers persueding defendants who admit they are guilty to lie and plead innocence? Maybe a mob lawyer? I never heard of such a thing happening but I don't get out much. That just seems unethical to me.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I think we will have a lot of answers to the speculation about his actions when we see his list of medications and when they were administered.

He can be good when he's off of a particular med and really wonky when he's on. This is one more thing on the very long list of things we just don't know.

As far as RA fretting about not being able to use the vending machine, maybe his wife wanted something to drink and a snack after her drive up there.

Yes a reasonable thing to upset a sane man. Does not align with the the mental state the defense is describing of RA iMO

Just another scenario of defense wanting two things to be true at once. JMO

 

[TTF14]

Why? Are there numerous cases of lawyers persueding defendants who admit they are guilty to lie and plead innocence? Maybe a mob lawyer? I never heard of such a thing happening but I don't get out much. That just seems unethical to me.

Furthermore, RA hasn't had any actual private conversations with his attorneys from what it sounds like. Seems like there would, then, be a record of this conversation if it had happened. I think it's pretty unlikely.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Why? Are there numerous cases of lawyers persueding defendants who admit they are guilty to lie and plead innocence? Maybe a mob lawyer? I never heard of such a thing happening but I don't get out much. That just seems unethical to me.

I think these particular attorneys are ego driven and it’s a game that they are playing to win. JMO
In fact, I think many passionate defense attorneys would absolutely persuade a client to try to fight the charges if they believed there was a chance they could win.JMO
From personal experience I have seen attorneys push their own agendas to rack up fees. Do you think this doesn’t happen with criminal defense lawyers? iMO yes
I believe this team had already been paid out over $150k in an October 23 and still had $51k in invoices to collect. Who knows how much more they have billed in fees. Or how much they have collected in crowdfunding.
So yes I think it absolutely happens that attorneys try to encourage their clients to fight to win freedom. JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Furthermore, RA hasn't had any actual private conversations with his attorneys from what it sounds like. Seems like there would, then, be a record of this conversation if it had happened. I think it's pretty unlikely.

I didn’t say it was private. I think we can all agree that they have talked to RA about his defense and strategy. IMO
A simple “ let’s not give up yet, we have some details that could make you a free man”.
JMO