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

[susiQ]

I count 5 new items on the docket... blah just media requests.

My crystal ball says, “Denied! One and all!!” She’s rather predictable.

 

[girlhasnoname]

This strategy seems more insane than the stuff RA did. What legal technicality you got in mind?

I agree with SSN, and this strategy doesn't seem insane to me (or SSN obvs). Everyone has their own opinion. I don't think it's fair to call it insane, even if we don't agree with others theories.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Well, I would love to know also, and that is the million dollar question, isn't it? I really have no idea why they didn't address those "incriminating statements" but I really can't speak to that issue without knowing the content and circumstances of the statements. The other 3 categories you have listed they want classified as actually 1 category; state actors. If they work for the state, then there is a problem with right against incriminating oneself.

I think otherwise the defense did an adequate job with the motion. They are looking for at minimum a hearing to discuss the matter, and likely detailed enough facts they felt necessary to achieve this.

ETA: there is a lot left out in motions as far as law goes. Another reason I have stressed in the past that the judge is the intended target of motions is that the authors know and understand the judge knows the law very well, so there is no need to make a huge treatise of background for the judge. They know she is aware of the issues they are discussing, so there is no need to discuss all issues and the history of the law on them, only what is particularly needed in any given circumstance.

I agree with you as regards the Judge, but doesn't the defence have to make a legal argument in so far as the relief sought, that the prosecution can respond to?

For e.g with the recorded phone calls to wife/mother, who are not 'agents of the state' the defence appears to make no legal or factual argument as to suppression, so how can the state respond to this?

This did in fact happen in the motion to dismiss, where Baldwin started in on questioning regarding an issue he had not pleaded so the Judge shut it down.

To me this is quite bizarre to not even mention an entire category of confessions, nor the basis for suppression. But maybe things are more free form that that ... or do we think there is a sealed motion for those ones?

 

[justtrish]

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).

I hope we learn more at the trial about this encounter.

Did RA call the tip line and a meeting was arranged where this conservation officer was sent to meet with a witness who was out walking the trails that day? Did they ask RA to come in to the police station and he said he couldn't, but could meet at xyz? Did RA just encounter this officer and decide to approach him and offer his account of walking that day and not seeing Abby and Libby or anything else? I think it could go either way. RA got lucky and this guy was sent to meet him or he was calculated in who he went to in order to give his statement.

I also want to know if the girls had been found yet at the point RA talked to the conservation officer. Was it 2 girls who were murdered while hiking or was this just 2 girls who went missing while hiking at that point? I recall RA telling him he saw 3 girls on/near Freedom bridge. The officer noted something about following up on who they were. So based on that we know the 3 girls either weren't identified yet or the conservation officer just didn't know because he wasn't involved in finding them or taking statements from them at the time he talked to RA.

 

[AugustWest]

@AugustWest

If ( big IF ) RA did have a short period of time when he totally broke down mentally while incarcerated, would that matter at all regarding the actual murders?
Isn't his mental health status on the day he killed the girls the focus?

As to his confessions, what criteria must be met in order to make them inadmissible?

Thank you for sharing your knowledge!

@Ravenmoon

A person's mental state at the time of the crime is determinative of whether one committed murder, as there is an intent element to the definition of murder. One could intend and premeditate to kill another, then become incompetent to make decisions later. One example off the top of my head (although not for murder) would be the Ron Jeremy situation.

As to the confessions, the Supreme Court hasn't made any hard and fast rules about mental illness and confessions. The court requires only that the confession is given "voluntarily" (not coerced). This is why Miranda is important. The Supreme Court recognizes that coercion is inherent in a police interrogation, so a suspect must be made aware of the right against self-incrimination and right to counsel.

See the holding in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986), for a good restatement of the SC rule:

"Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Here, the taking of respondent's statements and their admission into evidence constituted no violation of that Clause. While a defendant's mental condition may be a "significant" factor in the "voluntariness" calculus, this does not justify a conclusion that his mental condition, by itself and apart from its relation to official coercion, should ever dispose of the inquiry into constitutional "voluntariness." Pp. 479 U.S. 163-167."

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986)

Colorado v. Connelly

supreme.justia.com

 

[AugustWest]

I was thinking mostly about trying to get every piece of evidence ruled inadmissible.

@StarryStarryNight

Please understand I am not trying to pick on you here by saying this, but I see this often repeated, and it confuses me why this thought is so pervasive.

I understand that from a perspective outside of the courtroom that one would think this, but it is literally the job of a defense to attack any and every angle they possibly can in good faith to defend their client. It would simply be malpractice to not make an attempt. This is the road to ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

[susiQ]

If the state has the goods the defense has the goods.

RSABBM
One would hope, but does not seem to be the case here. The D are still looking for discovery. Appears this state prosecutor has his own special way of not disclosing relevant evidence as well as hiding discovery in MOUNTAINS of disorganized discovery. Why?
JMHO

 

[justtrish]

Something I think about if RA is not the killer.

He was walking the trail on a nice day. Just minding his business and later he learns that 2 girls are brutally murdered there, while he was there. If it isn't him, then he just missed seeing a killer or maybe he did see a killer. He might have been able to save them or help or see something. Did he go over this day in his head repeatedly. Did he talk to his wife about it over and over trying to remember any little detail that could help. He had a daughter after all.. he's a father to a girl. Did he ever think wow it could be my daughter and I'd want everyone to help in every way. Did he feel those feelings we often do when we think we could have prevented something "if only"...

Did RA say ANYTHING to anyone in his life after talking to that officer. Did he talk about it when he was shooting pool, did he watch the news or keep up with it? I know I sure would because I would feel some other connection to this and it would FREAK ME OUT that I was there when 2 girls were being abducted from a bridge I had just been on at the time I was just there. I mean seriously.. IF (huge if, because I think RA is BG) RA is not the killer, then he literally missed being there and being able to save the girls by like minutes right? I think most would feel guilt or like darn I could have saved them if only.... Did he ever express that to anyone?

OR did he never bring it up. Did anyone else know he was there walking that day? Did he even tell his wife he was there walking that day and that he had went to talk to the conservation officer about it?

Sometimes it's the things we do that is important and sometimes it's the things we don't do or say that seem most interesting. I'd be curious to know if RA ever again after talking to DD told anyone he was there that day walking.

 

[AugustWest]

I agree with you as regards the Judge, but doesn't the defence have to make a legal argument in so far as the relief sought, that the prosecution can respond to?

For e.g with the recorded phone calls to wife/mother, who are not 'agents of the state' the defence appears to make no legal or factual argument as to suppression, so how can the state respond to this?

This did in fact happen in the motion to dismiss, where Baldwin started in on questioning regarding an issue he had not pleaded so the Judge shut it down.

To me this is quite bizarre to not even mention an entire category of confessions, nor the basis for suppression. But maybe things are more free form that that ... or do we think there is a sealed motion for those ones?

Well, the State did respond to it. They addressed it in their responsive motion filed yesterday. Points 14-16 in that motion directly speak to that.

ETA: defense seeks relief (suppression), files motion addressing why relief is appropriate, prosecution files motion why relief is not appropriate, judge makes ruling (which hasn't been made yet).

 

[vinayd]

When they first arrested him I remember making a post imagining he told KA "I was right there, I was just giving the girls directions. I had no way of knowing that would happen to them." etc etc etc. I am in the camp that she knew and helped protect him and maybe gave an alibi. Maybe this is part of what they talked to her about on 10/12 interview. Maybe she was grilled on that alibi. Could this be what RA meant when he told them on the 10/26 interview to "leave his wife out of it".

Found Deceased - IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - #153 *ARREST - Richard Allen*

 

[girlhasnoname]

Something I think about if RA is not the killer.

He was walking the trail on a nice day. Just minding his business and later he learns that 2 girls are brutally murdered there, while he was there. If it isn't him, then he just missed seeing a killer or maybe he did see a killer. He might have been able to save them or help or see something. Did he go over this day in his head repeatedly. Did he talk to his wife about it over and over trying to remember any little detail that could help. He had a daughter after all.. he's a father to a girl. Did he ever think wow it could be my daughter and I'd want everyone to help in every way. Did he feel those feelings we often do when we think we could have prevented something "if only"...

Did RA say ANYTHING to anyone in his life after talking to that officer. Did he talk about it when he was shooting pool, did he watch the news or keep up with it? I know I sure would because I would feel some other connection to this and it would FREAK ME OUT that I was there when 2 girls were being abducted from a bridge I had just been on at the time I was just there. I mean seriously.. IF (huge if, because I think RA is BG) RA is not the killer, then he literally missed being there and being able to save the girls by like minutes right? I think most would feel guilt or like darn I could have saved them if only.... Did he ever express that to anyone?

OR did he never bring it up. Did anyone else know he was there walking that day? Did he even tell his wife he was there walking that day and that he had went to talk to the conservation officer about it?

Sometimes it's the things we do that is important and sometimes it's the things we don't do or say that seem most interesting. I'd be curious to know if RA ever again after talking to DD told anyone he was there that day walking.

Such a good point @justtrish . I've thought about that over the years. If I were innocent and happened to see Abby & Libby that day right before they were abducted and murdered, I probably would have shared the story 100 times over the years over remorse.

"Oh my gosh, I was right there on the bridge before the girls disappeared". "I wish I had seen something or done something to help them". "I feel so terrible, I wish I could remember exactly who I saw in the area"

Did RA tell KA he was there and gave a statement to LE? Did KA ever tell anyone RA was there that day I wonder? Did RA ever attend the vigils or the town hall meetings/updates?

RA was a local at the pub and pool hall and when asked if he talked about Abby & Libby while there, the owner said he would make a quick comment but not go into any detailed discussions.

Now on the other hand, if I were guilty, I wouldn't bring it up voluntarily to a soul. I would distance myself from anything related to the case. I wouldn't want friends or coworkers knowing I was on the bridge at that time and giving that video clip a good second or third look.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

This is an interesting paper on discovery written by Lorinda Youngcourt.
Home - National Criminal Defense College - NCDC - National Criminal Defense College › faculty › name › lorinda-youngcourt
Lorinda Youngcourt represented Indiana and Illinois capital and non-capital clients in trial, direct appeal, state post-conviction, and federal habeas.

IMO it's worth the read for those interested in understanding some of the D's actions in this case. It's 18 pgs long but, for now, I'm only going to quote a couple of paragraphs.
********************

https://www.in.gov/ipdc/files/DISCOVER.pdf

... Lorinda Youngcourt
In this chapter I have tried to outline some basic principals about discovery and how it can be used in capital litigation.

I. STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS
Counsel to a death charged defendant is always striving to learn as much information about her case as quickly as possible. Whether counsel should try to learn this information through formal discovery pleadings or informal interviews is a strategic decision.

A. Make a record. . . make a record. . . make a record. . . make a record. No one wants to lose a death penalty case, but unfortunately it happens. Unless you have made a record of the items you tried to discover but did not receive, there is no issue to pursue on appeal.

B. Once discovery is filed, the burden is on the State to respond. If the State does not adequately respond, it creates an issue to be litigated in pre-trial motions. An inadequate response may lay the ground work for a continuance.

 

[zh0r4]

Am I the only one appalled the state is going after a decorated LEO? Why is NM seemingly trying to discredit and/or intimidate a witness, especially when they are a ret. member of law enforcement?

Why is Mcleland trying to discredit Todd Click? When, ever, has anyone seen a prosecutor file a motion accusing a LE officer who worked on a case they are prosecuting, of a Brady-Giglio violation?

A reminder: Click, (now Ret.) Rushville Assistant Police Chief, worked with Murphy (ISP Detective) and Ferency (Terre Haute Detective) who were assigned with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) while investigating the Delphi case.

Yesterday NM filed a Motion to subpoena records about retired law enforcement officer Todd Click’s work and mental health (inappropriate at the least IMO).

In the D’s motion on page 9:

“Additionally, in early April, the defense requested the prosecution to provide Brady-Giglio material, if it exists, concerning certain law enforcement officials, both state and federal. The defense provided a deadline of April 15, 2024, for said Brady-Giglio material, then extended the deadline to April 19, 2024. To date the prosecution has failed to provide any Brady-Giglio material, nor has the State of Indiana indicated that no such material exists. The defense believes that at least one key member of law enforcement has Brady-Giglio material that the State of Indiana has still failed to turn over to the defense.”
Pic related:


I’m confused.

So the D asked the prosecution to provide potential Brady-Giglio material, if it exists, pertaining to certain LE (both state and federal), providing an extended deadline of April 19, 2024. Instead of providing said material, or even stating it doesn’t exist, NM files a motion accusing Click of Brady-Giglio violation 4 days later??

I would be surprised if most jurors (within the U.S.) would view a motion/accusations like this against a LEO in a favorable light, I’m very confused as to why he would do this.

AJMO.

Source:
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUBPOENA THIRD-PARTY RECORDS
filed by Mcleland
Motion For Leave to Subpoena Rushville PD
p. 10
MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
filed by Auger, Baldwin, and Rozzi
Motion to Compel & Request for Sanctions

 

[StarryStarryNight]

@StarryStarryNight

Please understand I am not trying to pick on you here by saying this, but I see this often repeated, and it confuses me why this thought is so pervasive.

I understand that from a perspective outside of the courtroom that one would think this, but it is literally the job of a defense to attack any and every angle they possibly can in good faith to defend their client. It would simply be malpractice to not make an attempt. This is the road to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Thanks for not picking on me!
I am aware what a defense attorney’s job is all about. My comment concerned my thoughts on the strategy of the defense team in this particular case.

Snipped from your post. Underlined by me.

“…it is literally the job of a defense to attack any and every angle they possibly can in good faith to defend their client.”

“…In good faith…” is where I have a problem with this defense team. <modsnip: No link to support opinion stated as fact>

 

[AugustWest]

Am I the only one appalled the state is going after a decorated LEO? Why is NM seemingly trying to discredit and/or intimidate a witness, especially when they are a ret. member of law enforcement?

Why is Mcleland trying to discredit Todd Click? When, ever, has anyone seen a prosecutor file a motion accusing a LE officer who worked on a case they are prosecuting, of a Brady-Giglio violation?

A reminder: Click, (now Ret.) Rushville Assistant Police Chief, worked with Murphy (ISP Detective) and Ferency (Terre Haute Detective) who were assigned with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) while investigating the Delphi case.

Yesterday NM filed a Motion to subpoena records about retired law enforcement officer Todd Click’s work and mental health (inappropriate at the least IMO).

Alarmingly, in the D’s motion on page 9:

“Additionally, in early April, the defense requested the prosecution to provide Brady-Giglio material, if it exists, concerning certain law enforcement officials, both state and federal. The defense provided a deadline of April 15, 2024, for said Brady-Giglio material, then extended the deadline to April 19, 2024. To date the prosecution has failed to provide any Brady-Giglio material, nor has the State of Indiana indicated that no such material exists. The defense believes that at least one key member of law enforcement has Brady-Giglio material that the State of Indiana has still failed to turn over to the defense.”
Pic related:
View attachment 499272

I’m confused.

So the D asked the prosecution to provide potential Brady-Giglio material, if it exists, pertaining to certain LE (both state and federal), providing an extended deadline of April 19, 2024. Instead of providing said material, or even stating it doesn’t exist, NM files a motion accusing Click of Brady-Giglio violation 4 days later??

I would be surprised if most jurors (within the U.S.) would view a motion/accusations like this against a LEO in a favorable light, I’m very confused as to why he would do this.

AJMO.

Source:
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUBPOENA THIRD-PARTY RECORDS
filed by Mcleland
Motion For Leave to Subpoena Rushville PD
p. 10
MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
filed by Auger, Baldwin, and Rozzi
Motion to Compel & Request for Sanctions

This is exactly why I posted that tweet from Wienecke yesterday. I'm really wondering what the prosecution is thinking here. To go here basically admits that past prosecutions, as well as this one, have been improper.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782855805630382334

 

[AugustWest]

Thanks for not picking on me!
I am aware what a defense attorney’s job is all about. My comment concerned my thoughts on the strategy of the defense team in this particular case.

Snipped from your post. Underlined by me.

“…it is literally the job of a defense to attack any and every angle they possibly can in good faith to defend their client.”

“…In good faith…” is where I have a problem with this defense team. <modsnip: No link to support opinion stated as fact>

I understand how you feel, but we were discussing exclusion of evidence. If there was coercion (I don't know that there was) then I think it clear a good faith argument for exclusion exists.

 

[arielilane]

SUNDAY NIGHT! Join us for the premiere of our @CourtTV documentary on The #Delphi Murders case

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782875456359780529

 

[FrostedGlass]

Am I the only one appalled the state is going after a decorated LEO? Why is NM seemingly trying to discredit and/or intimidate a witness, especially when they are a ret. member of law enforcement?

Why is Mcleland trying to discredit Todd Click? When, ever, has anyone seen a prosecutor file a motion accusing a LE officer who worked on a case they are prosecuting, of a Brady-Giglio violation?

A reminder: Click, (now Ret.) Rushville Assistant Police Chief, worked with Murphy (ISP Detective) and Ferency (Terre Haute Detective) who were assigned with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) while investigating the Delphi case.

Yesterday NM filed a Motion to subpoena records about retired law enforcement officer Todd Click’s work and mental health (inappropriate at the least IMO).

In the D’s motion on page 9:

“Additionally, in early April, the defense requested the prosecution to provide Brady-Giglio material, if it exists, concerning certain law enforcement officials, both state and federal. The defense provided a deadline of April 15, 2024, for said Brady-Giglio material, then extended the deadline to April 19, 2024. To date the prosecution has failed to provide any Brady-Giglio material, nor has the State of Indiana indicated that no such material exists. The defense believes that at least one key member of law enforcement has Brady-Giglio material that the State of Indiana has still failed to turn over to the defense.”
Pic related:
View attachment 499272

I’m confused.

So the D asked the prosecution to provide potential Brady-Giglio material, if it exists, pertaining to certain LE (both state and federal), providing an extended deadline of April 19, 2024. Instead of providing said material, or even stating it doesn’t exist, NM files a motion accusing Click of Brady-Giglio violation 4 days later??

I would be surprised if most jurors (within the U.S.) would view a motion/accusations like this against a LEO in a favorable light, I’m very confused as to why he would do this.

AJMO.

Source:
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUBPOENA THIRD-PARTY RECORDS
filed by Mcleland
Motion For Leave to Subpoena Rushville PD
p. 10
MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
filed by Auger, Baldwin, and Rozzi
Motion to Compel & Request for Sanctions

If the P has as solid of a case as he says he does, then IMO someone gave him some bad advice on the Brady-Giglio and the confessions.

I would have told him to sit back, relax a bit and let the Ds shoot themselves in their clown feet with their crazy Odinist theory. Additionally, 25 +/- confessions sounds a bit too crazy; lets pare them down a bit to several of the most believable.

In the end, however, I'm really interested in what person/s the D are looking at for the B-G violations. P's not wanting that out for whatever reason.

 

[layer]

This is exactly why I posted that tweet from Wienecke yesterday. I'm really wondering what the prosecution is thinking here. To go here basically admits that past prosecutions, as well as this one, have been improper.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782855805630382334

I was hinting at that in this post as well, I almost added that Nick has been very helpful in any strategy to undermine confidence in how Indiana LE operates.

 

[susiQ]

In the end, however, I'm really interested in what person/s the D are looking at for the B-G violations. P's not wanting that out for whatever reason.

RSBM
You don’t need three guesses for that! I know who’d be on the top of my list! JMO