Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #187

[TTF14]

Wieneke is Allen's appellate attorney.

Officially? Do appellate attorneys get hired/paid before a case even goes to trial? I genuinely don't know, which is why I'm asking. I am not baiting!

MOO

 

[MiniMoo]

No thank you. I have no desire to support YouTube/podcast wars between creators. The only way it stops is if we stop listening to "internet cranks" who are trying to cash in on the murders of two teenage girls.

(I'm not calling MS internet cranks...just using their verbiage.)

IMO MOO

Ive decided not to listen to anything either unless it is from the court house itself when it goes to trial. That won't be happening it seems, but I'd rather see what is brought up as fact there even if only in the news.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I wasn't aware that Wieneke and Ausbrook are currently getting paid for this case? Are they?

Bob Motta isn't even worth discussing in this context. He lives in another state and isn't even practicing law anymore. He can say whatever he wants IMO.

I refuse to listen to the podcast because I am not a fan of that podcast at all so I won't give them click$, but if CW and MA are earning money from work on this case, it's definitely not a good look (or worse?). I hope these podcasters provide receipts because at this point it's just their word we're supposed to be believing. That won't last long in terms of credibility with the masses (it never does).

IMO MOO

Allen's attorneys released a statement after speaking with his family:
"On behalf of Richard Allen, Mark Leeman and I (Cara Wieneke) are very pleased with the Court's order today and with how quickly the Court issued a decision. I spoke with Rick's wife earlier, and she is happy and relieved that Rick's attorneys have been reinstated."

They have ALL the receipts.


Indiana Supreme Court reinstates Richard Allen's original attorneys in Delphi murders case, keeps special judge

 

[TTF14]

Ive decided not to listen to anything either unless it is from the court house itself when it goes to trial. That won't be happening it seems, but I'd rather see what is brought up as fact there even if only in the news.

I don't even trust the news unless there are direct quotes. "Journalists" these days take too much creative liberty with paraphrasing/assuming facts. Court dockets and direct quotes in print, or better yet video, from LE, etc. is all that is actually true in this case. That's it.

IMO MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

Officially? Do appellate attorneys get hired/paid before a case even goes to trial? I genuinely don't know, which is why I'm asking. I am not baiting!

MOO

I don't know how she gets paid.

 

[TTF14]

Allen's attorneys released a statement after speaking with his family:
"On behalf of Richard Allen, Mark Leeman and I (Cara Wieneke) are very pleased with the Court's order today and with how quickly the Court issued a decision. I spoke with Rick's wife earlier, and she is happy and relieved that Rick's attorneys have been reinstated."

They have ALL the receipts.


Indiana Supreme Court reinstates Richard Allen's original attorneys in Delphi murders case, keeps special judge

Respectfully, I'm not sure how this answered my question about receipts? I'm talking about these private chats that a podcaster decided to make public.

IMO

 

[TTF14]

I don't know how she gets paid.

I don't think she's getting paid as Richard Allen's appellate attorney. I could be wrong, but it seems odd that she would be. She worked on the SCOIN stuff, which was not an appeal issue.

IMO MOO

 

[katydid23]

Ugh I wonder if there was more transparency directly from the court and less secrecy, it would make less room for these idiot podcaster and thirsty YouTubers to drum up pointless drama to further monetize this horrific murder.

I might be cranky so scroll now if you don’t want the rant lol. I don’t care at all about content creator wars. It’s childish. We’re grown ups. Why are these grown folks infiltrating and releasing a private group chat? For what? (Money.) I thought releasing the voicemail (for money) was low. This is just further perpetuating the “ circus side show” that is this case. Embarrassing.

MOO

Richard Allen's Appellate Attorney is in an ongoing professional group chat, in which they are discussing how to pry into the upcoming jurors private lives in order to potentially cause a mistrial.

This podcast is not a 'content creator's war.' It is a shocking leak revealing the unethical, potentially illegal behaviour going on behind the scenes with one of Allen's attorneys and some of the defense teams legal advisors.

I am guessing that if some of the prosecutions legal advisors had a defector that was leaking their group chats concerning HOW they planned to defeat the defense team's strategy, and they were mocking the victim's family and trash talking the sitting Judge, I AM PRETTY SURE the pro defense crew would be listening to the podcast and discussing it here. IMO

I don't think these were released for money---I think they wanted to prevent this crew from achieving these shady goals by bringing it into the open.

 

[Ravenmoon]

DBM

 

[photographer4]

Also attorney referring to a sitting Judge as a "ratchet b*ch" isn't the best look either. I hope Judge Gull makes a complaint after the rubbish the defense have put her though.

IMO

But that happens allll the time, among lawyers at all levels tbh. I used to work with lawyers and the courts and all the lawyers would have back room convos about the sitting judge on any given matter and their thoughts about him / her. They didn't mince their words and so long as the judge never heard it directly, who would care?

 

[Ravenmoon]

Respectfully, I'm not sure how this answered my question about receipts? I'm talking about these private chats that a podcaster decided to make public.

IMO

Honestly, the link provided and the statement was from Wieneke.

She was literally speaking on his and his families behalf.

As to them having receipts, you don't want to hear the podcast, which is fine...but, unless you listen..I don't know what to tell you.

 

[MiniMoo]

I don't even trust the news unless there are direct quotes. "Journalists" these days take too much creative liberty with paraphrasing/assuming facts. Court dockets and direct quotes in print, or better yet video, from LE, etc. is all that is actually true in this case. That's it.

IMO MOO

That is true, but with this case we don't have a choice unless there are some from here (unbiased) that attend it or even some attorneys like the two I saw with the Depp versus Heard case that I didn't mind - could have been three actually.

 

[Ravenmoon]

But that happens allll the time, among lawyers at all levels tbh. I used to work with lawyers and the courts and all the lawyers would have back room convos about the sitting judge on any given matter and their thoughts about him / her. They didn't mince their words and so long as the judge never heard it directly, who would care?

Did that include asking YouTubers to dig up information on all prospective jurors?

 

[TTF14]

Honestly, the link provided and the statement was from Wieneke.

She was literally speaking on his and his families behalf.

As to them having receipts, you don't want to hear the podcast, which is fine...but, unless you listen..I don't know what to tell you.

A podcast isn't receipts. We can't see them.

 

[TTF14]

Honestly, the link provided and the statement was from Wieneke.

She was literally speaking on his and his families behalf.

She was involved in the SCOIN issue and was commenting on that (and I believe she may have done that pro bono, but I need to look into that to see if I'm right). This does not mean she is "his attorney" as the writer of the article erroneously said. (This is what I mean about journalists and their creative liberty and assumptions).

IMO MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Who's got the time to listen to two people talk back and forth for over an hour when they ideas they express might take 5 to 10 minutes to read? Any reputable group, individual or organization put their ideas and opinions in writing. I refuse to waste my time listening to recordings of people talking. My opinion only.

I will just say, if you want to understand the type of people Baldwin and Rozzi are willingly allying themselves with, if not actually encouraging these people, you need to listen.
If you want to look the other way, that’s up to you.

My opinion

 

[katydid23]

I don't think she's getting paid as Richard Allen's appellate attorney. I could be wrong, but it seems odd that she would be. She worked on the SCOIN stuff, which was not an appeal issue.

IMO MOO

Maybe, maybe not.

But she was Richard Allen's attorney and represented him in the Indiana Supreme Court. So these texts from her and her colleagues are very disturbing. The way they trash talk and demean the judge, the victims and their families is horrible.

 

[katydid23]

She was involved in the SCOIN issue and was commenting on that (and I believe she may have done that pro bono, but I need to look into that to see if I'm right). This does not mean she is "his attorney" as the writer of the article erroneously said. (This is what I mean about journalists and their creative liberty and assumptions).

IMO MOO

SHE REPRESENTED HIM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. She SPOKE for him, in the court, as his legal representative.


According to our sister station WTHR, civil attorneys Mark K. Leeman and Cara Schaefer Wieneke filed a brief on behalf of Allen “to ensure that, going forward, Richard Allen receives his fundamental right to counsel.”

In the brief, the attorneys are asking for the following:

• Reinstate attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi as Allen’s court-appointed counsel
• Set a trial date within 70 days from the issuance of the writ of mandamus
• Remove Special Judge Frances Gull and appoint a new one

 

[m00c0w]

"Journalists" these days take too much creative liberty with paraphrasing/assuming facts.

RSBM

This perfectly describes defense filings as well. Not even trying to be facetious. Due diligence is key with everything in this mess.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

Maybe, maybe not.

But she was Richard Allen's attorney and represented him in the Indiana Supreme Court. So these texts from her and her colleagues are very disturbing. The way they trash talk and demean the judge, the victims and their families is horrible.

But wasn't she working on behalf of (I don't even know if representing is the right word) Baldwin and Rozzi because Judge Gull erroneously kicked them off the case? Did CW even speak that day? (I watched but can't remember). From what I remember, she got involved because she saw the injustice of fellow attorneys being mistreated, regardless of who their client was. I thought most of her work was writing the motion(s).

Maybe I'm wrong. It's how I understood it.

IMO MOO