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

[ClearAhead]

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.

IMO the jury would’ve convicted CA had the P presented a stronger case. The D posed the ‘Just blame daddy’ theory to demonstrate it was equally probable, which it truly was IMO, to successfully create doubt in the minds of the jury. The difference there was GA supported that theory with the end game to have his daughter acquitted.

I really doubt the D would find any Odinist who was willing to falsely testify on the witness stand to participating in these murders and that includes EF. Shame on the D if they even tried considering his mental capacity it that of a 7 or 8 year old child. To tell the truth it gives me a queasy feeling everytime his name is mentioned. I thought the days of unfairly blaming people with diminished mental capacity who are unable to defend themselves were over. So many known wrongful convictions have been the result.

MOO and JMO

 

[photographer4]

Just out of curiosity, have we considered that this entire leak by one member of the due process gang to murder sheets could all be part of some larger plan to further derail this trial?

Could it even have the effect of:
- getting B&R kicked off again as counsel by
RA or JG?
- could concerns about leaks lead to a mistrial?
- could concerns about leaks lead to more stalls by forcing more pre-trial hearings?

There is always some motive when people engage in this sort of nonsense. I somehow doubt the guy who gave it to MS was entirely pure in his motives. Maybe he was paid off? Maybe he was manipulated or volunteered to cause more side show drama. Who knows.

There doesn’t seem to be quite enough outrage by the ones involved in the conversation for it to really matter so maybe it won’t have any impact.

I noticed no (public) response as yet from JG either. Eg: no demand that the parties attend to see her in chambers so perhaps nothing will come of it all anyhow.

Fantastic if not nauseating side show drama though.

 

[TTF14]

Just out of curiosity, have we considered that this entire leak by one member of the due process gang to murder sheets could all be part of some larger plan to further derail this trial?

Could it even have the effect of:
- getting B&R kicked off again as counsel by
RA or JG?
- could concerns about leaks lead to a mistrial?
- could concerns about leaks lead to more stalls by forcing more pre-trial hearings?

There is always some motive when people engage in this sort of nonsense. I somehow doubt the guy who gave it to MS was entirely pure in his motives. Maybe he was paid off? Maybe he was manipulated or volunteered to cause more side show drama. Who knows.

There doesn’t seem to be quite enough outrage by the ones involved in the conversation for it to really matter so maybe it won’t have any impact.

I noticed no (public) response as yet from JG either. Eg: no demand that the parties attend to see her in chambers so perhaps nothing will come of it all anyhow.

Fantastic if not nauseating side show drama though.

Swaying future jurors could be a motive. It did end up in newspapers (with salacious headlines meant to "inform" the reader even if they don't read the article) after all. That may have been the motive.

JMO MOO

 

[Vern]

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

IMO MOO

No, no it's not. The prosecution aren't the ones out there suggesting that they are going to leak potential juror pool names out in advance to a bunch of internet sleuths so that those sleuths can attempt to dig up dirt on them to potentially influence the verdict. And, discussing doing ths with member(s) of the public albeit in a private chat amongst other platform means? There's a clear violation of the gag order AND the requirement to have any person they discuss the case with be vetted and sign orders regarding that access.

That's shameful. It's unethical ... and there's only one side suggesting that that is OK to do. Denial is akin to a river in Egypt and it is only flowing one way too IMO.

 

[TTF14]

No, no it's not. The prosecution aren't the ones out there suggesting that they are going to leak potential juror pool names out in advance to a bunch of internet sleuths so that those sleuths can attempt to dig up dirt on them to potentially influence the verdict.

That's shameful. It's unethical ... and there's only one side suggesting that that is OK to do. Denial is akin to a river in Egypt and it's only flowng one way too IMO.

It's acceptable for both sides to vet jurors is what I meant (and what I was replying to). The poster implied that it's shady for the defense side to look at the online presence of potential jurors. I think that's just part of the vetting process for both sides, just like it should be expected when applying for jobs, etc.

IMO MOO

 

[Vern]

Swaying future jurors could be a motive. It did end up in newspapers (with salacious headlines meant to "inform" the reader even if they don't read the article) after all. That may have been the motive.

JMO MOO

Well, that was the whole motive behind the actual group chats. How ironic.

Edit to add: I will find it very ironic for some if it turns out that MS podcasters did in fact report these group chats before they broadcast. It wouldn't be the first time they did that (leaked photos anyone?).

 

[Vern]

It's acceptable for both sides to vet jurors is what I meant (and what I was replying to). The poster implied that it's shady for the defense side to look at the online presence of potential jurors. I think that's just part of the vetting process for both sides, just like it should be expected when applying for jobs, etc.

IMO MOO

By professionals. Full stop IMO. That is not what the Defence is/was attempting to pull off. It's like comparing an apple to a hippopotamus.

The Defence wasn't talking about "vetting" - they were talking about influencing the outcome (verdict / ie: taint the jury pool). The two things do not mix IMO.

 

[AugustWest]

It's acceptable for both sides to vet jurors is what I meant (and what I was replying to). The poster implied that it's shady for the defense side to look at the online presence of potential jurors. I think that's just part of the vetting process for both sides, just like it should be expected when applying for jobs, etc.

IMO MOO

Both sides do and will vet jurors. It is simply part of voir dire. Always has been, attorneys just use a different medium to do so nowadays.

 

[steeltowngirl]

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

IMO MOO

Probably so. I would expect if it’s acceptable, it would be handled in a professional manner. In this case, we are not only hearing about the defense actually doing it, but also about them joking about it in group chats and using internet sleuths to perform their work.

Not ok.

jmo

 

[susane7]

By professionals. Full stop IMO. That is not what the Defence is/was attempting to pull off. It's like comparing an apple to a hippopotamus.

The Defence wasn't talking about "vetting" - they were talking about influencing the outcome (verdict / ie: taint the jury pool). The two things do not mix IMO.

Exactly, both sides will vet jurors but from professionals. The thing here is Cara wanted that Rozzi and Baldwin gave to that group who include random people who doesn't live in Indiana and have a history of doxxing and intimidating people, names and informations of potential jurors so that those people would dig the dirt on them.

 

[steeltowngirl]

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.

Huh? I am not an attorney, nor in any way legally assigned to this case.

I am just posting on a social media site known as Websleuths.

jmo

 

[m00c0w]

I think the jury vetting thing is a red herring that people are getting too distracted on here. Ultimately, the actual current defense counsel declined the offer (as far as we know).

The bigger issue (IMO) seems to be that former defense counsel (CW), as well as at least one member of the defense team (MH) were effectively leaking info that should be under gag and/or seal to random people not involved with the case in order to apparently use true crime influencers to shift the public perception of RA and the case. It's also unseemly that CW was apparently drafting at least one motion for RA while not being a member of his current defense team, and then commenting publicly on why the defense team may have done such a thing as if it was speculation, when in reality she's the one that drafted it and was privy to information that again should have been under seal or gag.

There's a reason she declined to be on the YouTube live last night, and I suspect it's because she realizes she needs to distance herself from the claims before anyone starts digging too far. She's already started a narrative (complete with spin) about how the screenshots were obtained illegally in what is probably a last ditch effort to make them inadmissible if it does come to some sort of litigation.

I don't see this just going away, unfortunately for the Due Process Gang.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

How ironic.

Exactly! Birds of a feather...

IMO

 

[TTF14]

Probably so. I would expect if it’s acceptable, it would be handled in a professional manner. In this case, we are not only hearing about the defense actually doing it, but also about them joking about it in group chats and using internet sleuths to perform their work.

Not ok.

jmo

The defense team (Baldwin and Rozzi) was not joking in group chats about using internet sleuths to perform their work. That is extremely misleading and simply untrue.

I would love to see the private group chats the MS youtubers are in and what they talked about coming up to this 3-episode spree of theirs.

Birds of a feather....

IMO MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I think the jury vetting thing is a red herring that people are getting too distracted on here. Ultimately, the actual current defense counsel declined the offer (as far as we know).

The bigger issue (IMO) seems to be that former defense counsel (CW), as well as at least one member of the defense team (MH) were effectively leaking info that should be under gag and/or seal to random people not involved with the case in order to apparently use true crime influencers to shift the public perception of RA and the case. It's also unseemly that CW was apparently drafting at least one motion for RA while not being a member of his current defense team, and then commenting publicly on why the defense team may have done such a thing as if it was speculation, when in reality she's the one that drafted it and was privy to information that again should have been under seal or gag.

There's a reason she declined to be on the YouTube live last night, and I suspect it's because she realizes she needs to distance herself from the claims before anyone starts digging too far. She's already started a narrative (complete with spin) about how the screenshots were obtained illegally in what is probably a last ditch effort to make them inadmissible if it does come to some sort of litigation.

I don't see this just going away, unfortunately for the Due Process Gang.

JMO

Agreed. It feels like either B&R or CW (or both), have breached the gag order over the motion for parity.

 

[AugustWest]

Agreed. It feels like either B&R or CW (or both), have breached the gag order over the motion for parity.

Here is the gag order (pg. 49 of 284):

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf

In relevant part:

4. "That the discovery material shall not be publicly exhibited, displayed, shown, used for educational, research or demonstrative purposes or used in any other manner, except in judicial proceedings in the above referenced action."

• Discord chats don't fall under the category of "publicly exhibited."

5. "That the discovery material may be viewed only by parties, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts."

• People that are used in a vetting process for voir dire fall into the category of "counsel's investigators."

 

[photographer4]

Swaying future jurors could be a motive. It did end up in newspapers (with salacious headlines meant to "inform" the reader even if they don't read the article) after all. That may have been the motive.

JMO MOO

So who does the salacious headline help? Certainly not the D team. Lmao. Who says someone from the state didn’t help this “leak” to happen??

 

[m00c0w]

Here is the gag order (pg. 49 of 284):

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf

In relevant part:

4. "That the discovery material shall not be publicly exhibited, displayed, shown, used for educational, research or demonstrative purposes or used in any other manner, except in judicial proceedings in the above referenced action."

• Discord chats don't fall under the category of "publicly exhibited."

5. "That the discovery material may be viewed only by parties, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts."

• People that are used in a vetting process for voir dire fall into the category of "counsel's investigators."

1. I believe discord chats would fall under “or used in any other manner…”

2. That poster was not referring to anything having to do with voir dire.

 

[steeltowngirl]

The defense team (Baldwin and Rozzi) was not joking in group chats about using internet sleuths to perform their work. That is extremely misleading and simply untrue.

I would love to see the private group chats the MS youtubers are in and what they talked about coming up to this 3-episode spree of theirs.

Birds of a feather....

IMO MOO

Fair enough. Too late to correct my post to say Due Process Gang, not defense.

 

[AugustWest]

1. I believe discord chats would fall under “or used in any other manner…”

2. That poster was not referring to anything having to do with voir dire.

Vetting possible jurors is part of voir dire. I can't go back and forth with you on point 1, so I'll just say I disagree. Discord chat logs aren't even "discovery material," so technically (4) doesn't even apply.