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

[girlhasnoname]

If you listen to the three podcasts you'd see that was NOT how the conversations went. There was talk of doing illegal searches/manipulations online to find out things about potential jurors, private citizens...handing over jurors questionnaires to a true crime youtuber in Carolina and probably whomever they drafted to help them. We're not talking professionals that are to vet jurors. We're talking unvetted people themselves possibly getting people's private info to spread around and share with who knows who. Is that the way it's suppose to be done?

https://murdersheetpodcast.com/

Right, who also said how easy it was to manipulate somebody's online presence to make them look bad. I'd say that's pretty unethical and maybe criminal.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Guess the MS Info. did make local news:

Leaked group chat reveals defense team strategies in Delphi murders case​

<snipped>

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Leaked conversations between attorneys close to the Delphi murders case and YouTube true crime podcasters appear to reveal the defense team’s strategies going into the suspect’s October trial.

The cohosts of “The Murder Sheet Podcast” told I-Team 8 they were given thousands of messages from the group chat that spanned several months.

‘”We were quite surprised to see that people closely affiliated with the defense team were in such extensive contact with internet sleuths because previously this case was derailed by a leak,” said cohost Aine Cain said.

Leaked group chat reveals defense team strategies in Delphi murders case

 

[mrjitty]

DBM

 

[susane7]

Did they talk about what motivated Paul to do turn on them? What was his role in all of it? Didn’t listen. Won’t listen so help appreciated here. Ty.

Paul was interviewed in the third episode. From what I understood, he realize that those people are trying to manipulate a narrative for the public and tried to use him and others for that (a false narrative that even those people don't believe). He didn't felt confortable with that. He also didn't feel confortable with the proximity between some of them and the defense or the investigator for the defense and their attempts to interfere in the case especially after the first leak. He also are open to RA' guilt in some way since he said there are some things that RA needs to explain and doesn't look good for him and the others aren't open to discuss RA's guilt. They just want to interfere in the case to win and "save" RA. Even though Cara doesn't even know why she thinks RA is innocent

 

[susane7]

It doesn’t sound like the D accepted any such offer for this though? It sounds like people discussed it but it didn’t become an actual plan or actioned in any way.

Doing so would have been very bad for sure. But discussing the concept? Meh. They can have their fantasy strategy all they want. But throwing the idea out doesn’t mean that they’d ever do it for real.

We hope. Right??

No, Baldwin and Rozzi rejected that "brilliant" idea of Cara. Kudos for them. Even they know there are lines that cannot be crossed. If they had given the green light, Cara and the others would have done it. But there is no guarantee that they won't try to do it next time and that they will not have the green light by Baldwin and Rozzi.

 

[girlhasnoname]

If KAK/A_Shots does give any information for the State at trial, it's good to know they didn't cut a deal with him. His appeal on the 43 year sentence was denied. Thank you.

This may have already been posted, if so I apologize.

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/appe...-43-year-sentence-in-child-exploitation-case/

 

[TTF14]

YES, the attorneys for both sides get that very personal info. But when you fill it out, you assume it is staying within the court and the attorneys private files.

The 'Gang' suggested that the defense duo send all of that very private info to a ragtag group of Discord friends, so they can ALL have that private info to do deep dives on it. How many people would be disseminating your private info in a situation like that?

I totally understand that the defense team would give that info to their assistants or interns to try and vet the potential jurors.

But sending them out to group chat on Discord ? That seems way out of line and was not what the jurors expect when they hand over such private information.

If that's exactly what they said, and meant, I agree, that's beyond the pale.

IMO MOO

 

[justtrish]

Mistakes happen!

Yes and this one happened well before RA was on their radar. It was not an intentional attempt to delete recordings of interviews with suspects so the police could then 5 years later frame RA. It was also more than just interviews in this case that were recorded over and there are written notes from the interviews that were lost. It happens and the people that were interviewed are still alive and well and able to be interviewed again if need be.

 

[AugustWest]

Here is an ABA article on vetting for jury selection, should anyone be interested:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/the_brief/2016_17/winter/voir_dire_becomes_voir_google_ethical_concerns_of_21st_century_jury_selection/

Link to professional vetting service: The Crucial Role of Jury Vetting in Modern Legal Proceedings

 

[MollyDDD]

Sign me up. I can find out the dirt on your neighbor’s ex-husbands new mother-in-law’s college roommate in ten minutes flat!

IMO

 

[MollyDDD]

Guess the MS Info. did make local news:

Leaked group chat reveals defense team strategies in Delphi murders case​

<snipped>

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Leaked conversations between attorneys close to the Delphi murders case and YouTube true crime podcasters appear to reveal the defense team’s strategies going into the suspect’s October trial.

The cohosts of “The Murder Sheet Podcast” told I-Team 8 they were given thousands of messages from the group chat that spanned several months.

‘”We were quite surprised to see that people closely affiliated with the defense team were in such extensive contact with internet sleuths because previously this case was derailed by a leak,” said cohost Aine Cain said.

Leaked group chat reveals defense team strategies in Delphi murders case

Ruh roh.

 

[AugustWest]

Thank you! I appreciate your explanation.

So, hypothetically speaking ( because I don't have available links) if each person was able to provide alibis, and each alibi was fully and exhaustively checked and verified, then this is no longer of exculpatory value?

I know that EF allegedly made incriminating statements, I get that. But, if he back pedaled and showed that he was nowhere in the vicinity, then this would no longer be considered exculpatory, correct?

He has the mental capacity of a7 to 8 year old, and I believe his sister also has some developmental disabilities as well. Also, if the sister is to be believed, he NEVER said he killed anyone. He claimed to have be present and spit on AW. He also says he put horns on her head, which, by the way, was never a real thing. People that viewed the crime scene photos say that there were branches everywhere and none were placed purposely to mimic horns.


All can be found in the Franks Memorandum.

My sense and understanding is that all of these men were covered, alibis verified and LE moved on.

I do appreciate your legal expertise!

Edited to say and add:

If EF claimed to have been in the company of these other individuals and they simply could not have been in that place at that time, wouldn't that further weaken the claims that he was there?

@Ravenmoon

The confession of EF in this instance will always be exculpatory.

I think the problem you are having here is understanding that "verified alibi" isn't a thing. This alibi has been checked by law enforcement. Law enforcement could lie. Video verifying a person's presence somewhere at a certain time could be manipulated. A witness's word could be outright lies. These are all fact questions a jury would decide. They would weigh the veracity of the information of both parties and then determine which they felt is more persuasive.

Hope this helps!

 

[Vern]

They don’t have to believe a word of what they try to spin. They just have to convince a jury that it could have happened some other way by some other dude(s).

Sounds straight out of the playbook of the Casey Anthony trial with their 'just blame daddy'. We know how that turned out, but that doesn't mean it should have.

Ethics and morals are supposed to mean something - even for Defence Attorneys. One can be an excellent, successful and highly sought after Defence Attorney and still be a good, ethical person. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Far, faaaaaar from it.

 

[pseudo_hum]

Sounds straight out of the playbook of the Casey Anthony trial with their 'just blame daddy'. We know how that turned out, but that doesn't mean it should have.

Ethics and morals are supposed to mean something - even for Defence Attorneys. One can be an excellent, successful and highly sought after Defence Attorney and still be a good, ethical person. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Far, faaaaaar from it.

Agreed, IMO, that would require dedication and hard work, which seems to escape the current attorneys for RA.

 

[photographer4]

Two of the people discussing it were attorneys working with B and R. CW took the brilliant idea to them but they said NO. So you are right, it didn't happen, but this group tried to make it happen.

They would have if they were given the green light.

Right.

Well, good thing b & r declined the offer (or a shame someone wasn’t stupid enough to put a “yes” from them in writing).

I could actually believe they may yet go ahead with this. I wonder how often this happens - that they use hired firms or volunteers without oversight / training etc?

 

[steeltowngirl]

Interesting times we are living in. It’s acceptable for defense attorneys to evaluate potential jury members by their online activity. But, when members of the public evaluate the character of defense lawyers exposed by their online activity, it’s an invasion of their privacy, or taken out of context. Funny, that.

jmo

 

[TTF14]

Interesting times we are living in. It’s acceptable for defense attorneys to evaluate potential jury members by their online activity. But, when members of the public evaluate the character of defense lawyers exposed by their online activity, it’s an invasion of their privacy, or taken out of context. Funny, that.

jmo

It's probably acceptable for the State to do this as well.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Michael Ausbrook was offered an NDA to sign if he wanted to see the FULL video taken by Libby of Bridge Guy. He said he refused the invitation.

Does this not also imply he refused to sign an NDA?

 

[Tealgrove]

Interesting times we are living in. It’s acceptable for defense attorneys to evaluate potential jury members by their online activity. But, when members of the public evaluate the character of defense lawyers exposed by their online activity, it’s an invasion of their privacy, or taken out of context. Funny, that.

jmo

EXACTLY!

 

[photographer4]

Interesting times we are living in. It’s acceptable for defense attorneys to evaluate potential jury members by their online activity. But, when members of the public evaluate the character of defense lawyers exposed by their online activity, it’s an invasion of their privacy, or taken out of context. Funny, that.

jmo

We sleuth people via publicly accessible info / online footprints every day. What makes us any more ethical than anyone else who does it? We are supposed to stick to people named as suspects by LE etc but I’m not naive enough to think that others don’t get sleuthed and talked about in private conversations.