Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[photographer4]

Smh oh well thank you for the information. Some Selective listening going on in here.

Or, in my case, not listening at all to the podcast. Hoping a transcript gets released. For those interested, another podcast featuring some of the parties named by MS plans to air their own podcast this evening in response to the MS series on this case. It’s not an approved source so I can’t link or name which one. I won’t listen to that one either for those wondering but hope for a summary or transcript to be released.

 

[AugustWest]

Hi August!

Question regarding what would be exculpatory evidence:

If the Odinists were ruled out because of verified alibis, would that still be considered exculpatory?

@Ravenmoon Hey there, good to see you again!

Exculpatory evidence is simply "evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant." See: exculpatory evidence

An alleged confession from a third party would be exculpatory evidence and would always remain such. An alibi would obviously make the confession less likely, and thus needs to be weighed against each other to determine which is more credible. This would be a fact question for a jury.

In the instant case (meaning State v. Allen), Judge Gull must first determine whether the defense has grounds for a third-party defense.

• If the answer is "yes they do," then evidence of third-party confession is admitted, which the prosecution would rebut the exculpatory evidence with alibi evidence at trial. The jury would weigh the competing evidence, and make whatever decision they feel appropriate.
• If the answer is "No nexus for third-party defense, then any other "Odinists with verified alibis" is not relevant evidence, and thus inadmissible.

The issues of third-party defense and exculpatory evidence are obviously intertwined, and seeing the timing of the various determinations is important.

1. Make determination whether evidence is exculpatory.
2. Determine relevance of evidence (judge determines).
3. Determine any exceptions for excluding relevant evidence (judge determines).
4. Admit/Deny admission of evidence (judge determines).
5. Determine whether exculpatory relevant evidence is credible (i.e. is alleged confession reliable? Is confessor alibi reliable?) (Jury determines).

I know this is a convoluted answer, but I felt it important to show the order of determination of the issues to adequately answer you. If I didn't even come close to answering your question, I apologize. It always stays exculpatory though.

Edit: added "confessor" to alibi

 

[m00c0w]

Thank you! So if her ruling over the PI issue was sealed then how is it ok they D named them as far back a franks memo?! If she denied the request and they paid for it themselves then does that exempt them from breaching a sealed ruling? I’m a bit confused on how they can name him unless he’s not under seal due to not being paid for by the state?

I think it's basically a couple of things:

- The items were sealed because they were ex parte communications that the defense did not want to share with the prosecution as it might give away too much of the defense's strategy. The only side harmed in revealing the identity of the PI is the defense, so it's not really worth getting worked up over since they're only injuring themselves.

- Naming the investigator and stating he's been on the case team since December isn't directly leaking the contents of the sealed communications. One can infer things, but they didn't explicitly say anything that I think would be attributable to those documents alone. In fact, we don't even know that he was the subject of the December 2022 filings to begin with.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

The State seems to want to do that also, for now, before trial. As soon as RA got moved from Westville to Wabash KAK got shipped out of Wabash lickety split. That makes me think KAK just may testify for the prosecution. Just a thought.

I think he may as well. And if he does, the D better be ready cause that guy seems to lie.

 

[photographer4]

I think it's basically a couple of things:

- The items were sealed because they were ex parte communications that the defense did not want to share with the prosecution as it might give away too much of the defense's strategy. The only side harmed in revealing the identity of the PI is the defense, so it's not really worth getting worked up over since they're only injuring themselves.

- Naming the investigator and stating he's been on the case team since December isn't directly leaking the contents of the sealed communications. One can infer things, but they didn't explicitly say anything that I think would be attributable to those documents alone. In fact, we don't even know that he was the subject of the December 2022 filings to begin with.

JMO

Thank you for helping me to better understand!

 

[grannygates]

All that info is in the MS podcasts that you don't want to listen to and we have been discussing the past 2 days. JMO

Could we ask for time stamps or for people to quote the sentence that is said by the podcasters so we don’t have to listen all of the episodes to try to find what sentence or quote is being discussed ?

 

[m00c0w]

Could we ask for time stamps or for people to quote the sentence that is said by the podcasters so we don’t have to listen all of the episodes to try to find what sentence or quote is being discussed ?

The excerpt in particular I was talking about starts around 36:16 in the third episode, which is the episode I linked in the post. There's not much beyond what I wrote, but I understand wanting to listen for yourself. I probably would, too.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I agree, but why stop there?

With proper investigators we wouldn't have had to wait over 5 years for an arrest.

That is possible!

 

[TTF14]

The State seems to want to do that also, for now, before trial. As soon as RA got moved from Westville to Wabash KAK got shipped out of Wabash lickety split. That makes me think KAK just may testify for the prosecution. Just a thought.

Maybe. If the two are linked, I am surprised RA doesn't have any CSAM charges, though. If RA is guilty, I do think there has to be a connection, but the lack of charges (or mention of KAK at all) makes me confused.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

Thank you! So if her ruling over the PI issue was sealed then how is it ok they D named them as far back a franks memo?! If she denied the request and they paid for it themselves then does that exempt them from breaching a sealed ruling? I’m a bit confused on how they can name him unless he’s not under seal due to not being paid for by the state?

Is he actually a "private investigator" or just an investigator that gathers info. routinely for them? Is there a difference?

 

[Boxer]

During the trial, the role of the Prosecution is to prove the guilt of RA and they will do that by introducing evidence. Taped over interviews of other parties who were interviewed early on is neither going to convict him nor prove him not guilty. MOO

Right that is the "some other guy did it" defense.
Defense is working errors for doubt - while the prosecution has a positive case and trail of evidence to present.

 

[Boxer]

Maybe. If the two are linked, I am surprised RA doesn't have any CSAM charges, though. If RA is guilty, I do think there has to be a connection, but the lack of charges (or mention of KAK at all) makes me confused.

IMO MOO

Looking at Indiana sex offenders register is crazy - it's a wonder any kids are safe anywhere.
In other words, there are so many of these predators that they don't have to be in a nexus together, there is enough predatory activty genrerally to be parallel and unrelated. Terrible.

 

[sunshineray]

The Defense has proven this to be the case since the filing of their first Franks Memo.

JMO

Yes like the poster said, "cirumventing" by "sneaking", skulduggery throw right in the face of our legal system. One of the most shocking things from the three-part MS podcasts was when CW was asked by the "Gang" when the juror questionnaires are given to the defense, to which she answered, (paraphrasing) That's a good question. I've seen them given the day of the start of jury selection and other times 6 weeks in advance. The conversation continued that if they, I'm assuming that meant the "Gang", could get their hands on them they could do deep dives on the prospective jurors (private citizens)..."they" being the non-lawyers, the youtubers. My point in bringing this up...there was no language from CW, an appellate lawyer, immediately saying, Whoooa there! That's illegal, forget that. Enlightening...sickeningly so. AJMO

 

[katydid23]

Not good enough. And totally sus.

I'm interviewing someone in 45 minutes. I'll be recording the conversation. Why? Because I don't know shorthand and won't be able to write the piece I need to without referencing a recording. Our brains can only hold so much, and especially in a criminal investigation, every single word and detail matters.

I'll eat my words if we find out the person who conducted the interview has an eidetic memory.

IMO MOO

There might be a difference between the type of interview you are doing, and the type of interview LE does when questioning a witness or potential suspect.

In your interview, you are probably not asking short, yes or no, questions. Or quick specific questions---Did you go to the bridge? What time did you arrive? What time did you leave? Where did you park? Did you speak to anyone? What were you wearing?

In an interview like that, LE would be fully capable of taking notes without an eidetic memory. IMO

When LE does a long, complex interview with a suspect or a witness who saw the crime happen, they will have other officers also watching and taking notes. So if something happens to the footage, there might be some solid notes to refer to.

 

[TTF14]

There might be a difference between the type of interview you are doing, and the type of interview LE does when questioning a witness or potential suspect.

In your interview, you are probably not asking short, yes or no, questions. Or quick specific questions---Did you go to the bridge? What time did you arrive? What time did you leave? Where did you park? Did you speak to anyone? What were you wearing?

In an interview like that, LE would be fully capable of taking notes without an eidetic memory. IMO

When LE does a long, complex interview with a suspect or a witness who saw the crime happen, they will have other officers also watching and taking notes. So if something happens to the footage, there might be some solid notes to refer to.

True. And good points.

However, with the timeline so tight here (and not making sense, but that's another issue), it was crucial to get ALL early interviews/details exactly right.

Now, there's literally nothing to compare secondary interviews with. When they "lose" recordings, we just have to take them at their word. Do we believe DD who "remembers" what RA said about when he was there? Or do we believe what RA actually said recorded on audio/video?

We all know which one the prosecution team went with.

IMO MOO

 

[sunshineray]

I think the first few days of interviews after the murders would be the most important to keep. MOO

Not necessarily. Lots of investigations at the beginning are set to elimminate suspects, which is what I'm sure they did with BH since he was an hour away at work when the girls were murdered. MO

 

[sunshineray]

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the fact that ALL interview videos were lost. Not just one. Did I misunderstand? Were we talking about one specific video (and if so, whose)? I'm doing ten things at once right now and may have misunderstood.

IMO MOO

If they lost an interview with someone they were later interested in they'd just have interviewed him again, no?

 

[sunshineray]

because they needed a big splashy conspiracy to mobilise supporters. IMO

Boy oh boy I really want to hear just what was found on RA's devices. Something gleaned from that search warrant has had RA's defense in a panic from the start. JMO

 

[TTF14]

Not necessarily. Lots of investigations at the beginning are set to elimminate suspects, which is what I'm sure they did with BH since he was an hour away at work when the girls were murdered. MO

The girls were reported to have gone missing almost 24 hours before their bodies were reported to be found. Do we know when it was even determined for sure what their time of death was?

 

[TTF14]

If they lost an interview with someone they were later interested in they'd just have interviewed him again, no?

Yep. But chances of catching them in lies/inconsistencies lessen without recordings of the first interview.