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

[photographer4]

A tip: the girls of that account made a post a few weeks ago complaing "The blabla “X” account was deleted entirely. They explain they do not have access to any of their accounts, including the YouTube channel. They explain it was the guy that locked them out..

Shrug. SO be it then. Sleep with dogs, get fleas? Drama, drama, drama.

 

[TTF14]

Having been in backrooms of several court rooms with counsel and opposing counsel for various matters at various levels of court... I can assure you, they all make pretty similar remarks about eachother and the judge, and even families / accused etc from time to time. Often times, they even laugh about it. Oh the stories I could tell! LOL. So do we expect some sort of consequences then for the leaker or the involved chat participants or both?

Have you ever seen any of those people take to a podcast to tell the world what unsavory things were said about the judge or the victims?

Hypothetical scenario: "I can't believe what these people said about the judge and the victims! It's SO hurtful....they would be heartbroken to hear those awful things! How could people say those things??? I know...let's put it on the internet so they can decide for themselves just how heartbroken they want to be!"

IMO MOO

 

[justtrish]

RSBM

I underestand this viewpoint. Many share your opinion. I wonder how many who feel this way would react if the State was doing this or something similar.

Just pondering.

IMO JMO MOO

I would feel the exact same way if it was the prosecution.

 

[TTF14]

I would feel the exact same way if it was the prosecution.

Nobody, on either side, who is under the gag order should be using podcasters and YouTubers as their mouthpiece to get any kind of spin out.

I'm glad we can at least all agree on this.

MOO JMO IMO

 

[photographer4]

My point being the messages are legit and you can still see it as he said/she said, but that doesn't change the fact the messages happened and a participant in those messages is who shared the access with MS AND he has talked about it. I think someone participating in the discussions would know the context. He spoke about it. So for CW to say it was hacked or stolen or whatever else is just not true and when the person that gave access says they did, I believe them.

This is about the integrity of the defense. The family is already hurting so podcasters exposing the truth about things is not doing more harm than has already been done. I think it in fact confirms what the family already knows about them. They just can't speak about it because they are honoring the gag order.. unlike the defense.

They can talk all they want about it - its talk. Does it actually affect the case? So far, I've not had an answer on how it could? Again, I'm sorry the family is dealing with this but it is what it is. No recourse for them either it seems, sadly

 

[katydid23]

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.

But if you are releasing the private info of the jurors to someone else , don't you have to vet those people?

I totally understand the need to vet the jurors. But I also understand the need to protect the jurors from having all their private info disseminated to random you-tube sleuths. I would expect the 'vetters' would be trained professionals working for a licensed company. Not just everyone in a random Discord Group that volunteered to do a deep dive on the juror's social media.

ON MS, there was a message from one guy, who volunteered to help vet jurors, and said he taught college classes and he could get his students to help. So that would mean that this very private juror info, would be disseminated to various college kids. And during the high profile murder trial, the addresses, phone numbers, and social media accounts of the jurors would now be accessible to a large number of random students ----IMO, things could easily go sideways.

My Dad was a well respected defense attorney. When I was in college I worked for him. Sometimes he would take me to court for hearings etc, to help him do various tasks. Sometimes we'd be sent downstairs to 'public records' library to quickly look up the voting records of potential jurors, or the search addresses to see who owned the property, to see if they were homeowners, or were in good standing etc. SO I UNDERSTAND the need to vet jurors. But that private info should not be widely disseminated to random people, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

Heh, well, my vetting process is asking my paralegal to find out "dirt" (job of potential juror, voter registration, address, things like that). So, just use of internet searches and the like. Of course, my primary practice is medical malpractice/bad faith insurance claims, not double murder, nationally-renowned, big boy criminal. The guy I know who does that uses a professional service.

Here are a few:

The Crucial Role of Jury Vetting in Modern Legal Proceedings

In an age where information is both widespread and easily accessible, jury vetting has become a pivotal aspect of the judicial process. Jury vetting involves the systematic investigation and assessment of potential jurors to ensure they are unbiased and suitable for a particular trial. This...

xinvestigations.com

Jury Vetting - Nighthawk Strategies

nighthawkstrategies.com

And that^^^^ is my point. Professionals use a professional licensed service because the jurors info has to remain protected.

CW was setting up a plan to disseminate that private info to random unlicensed, inexperienced people to do that work.

 

[TTF14]

And that^^^^ is my point. Professionals use a professional licensed service because the jurors info has to remain protected.

CW was setting up a plan to disseminate that private info to random unlicensed, inexperienced people to do that work.

Is CW in charge?

 

[ShamelessObserver]

Following

 

[AugustWest]

But if you are releasing the private info of the jurors to someone else , don't you have to vet those people?

I totally understand the need to vet the jurors. But I also understand the need to protect the jurors from having all their private info disseminated to random you-tube sleuths. I would expect the 'vetters' would be trained professionals working for a licensed company. Not just everyone in a random Discord Group that volunteered to do a deep dive on the juror's social media.

ON MS, there was a message from one guy, who volunteered to help vet jurors, and said he taught college classes and he could get his students to help. So that would mean that this very private juror info, would be disseminated to various college kids. And during the high profile murder trial, the addresses, phone numbers, and social media accounts of the jurors would now be accessible to a large number of random students ----IMO, things could easily go sideways.

My Dad was a well respected defense attorney. When I was in college I worked for him. Sometimes he would take me to court for hearings etc, to help him do various tasks. Sometimes we'd be sent downstairs to 'public records' library to quickly look up the voting records of potential jurors, or the search addresses to see who owned the property, to see if they were homeowners, or were in good standing etc. SO I UNDERSTAND the need to vet jurors. But that private info should not be widely disseminated to random people, IMO.

I don't mean this negatively in any way @katydid23, but did you feel unethical doing so? What distinguishes you, as a daughter, from a paralegal, or a youtuber, or a law professor, or Jim down the street?

You weren't from a professional company, trained to do jury vetting, and I don't think your father did anything wrong by asking you to do so.

Here, we have an offer to the defense by a group of persons to do the vetting. I don't even know if they vetted any jurors yet. No foul yet; I haven't heard of the Discord group individuals going out and doxxing people. Am I wrong?

 

[Trebor5591]

Leaked group chat reveals defense team strategies in Delphi murders case
NDIANAPOLIS (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.

Richard Allen, 51, of Delphi, was arrested on Oct. 28, 2022, for the February 2017 murders of 13-year-old Abigail “Abby” Williams and 14-year-old Liberty “Libby” German near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi.

According to screenshots obtained by Cain and cohost Kevin Greenlee, the group chat was called “Due Process Gang.” It consisted of Cara Wieneke, a lawyer who represented Allen in the fight to keep his attorneys on the case, an attorney representing Allen’s attorneys, and several YouTubers who talk about true crime cases that include the Delphi murders.

Wieneke shared a statement with I-Team 8.

“Recently, out of revenge a person who knew the password of one of my friends accessed her X account and copied all of her private conversations. He gave those conversations to Murder Sheet, who read some of them aloud on recent episodes. The conversations were blended together, and the messages were read out of order and out of context. Their purpose? To make it seem like we were “hired” by Allen’s defense team to sway public opinion. We were not.”

Cain and Greenlee said some of the messages in the group chat bring up ethical concerns of potential jury tampering, particularly when Wieneke and the others talk about giving YouTube internet sleuths surveys filled out by potential jurors so they can do background investigations on them.

Cain said, “Where this becomes uncomfortable is when you’re bringing in internet sleuths who are not even from Indiana to do this with zero training. I think even if they’re signing things like NDAs (nondisclosure agreements), that should give people pause because, in the Delphi case especially, internet sleuths do not have the best reputation as far as ethics or not harassing people.”

Wieneke said, “I expressed doubt that the defense would have time to vet hundreds of jurors before the May trial date. A friend offered her help. I said I would let the defense team know. I did. They said no. That is not jury tampering.”

Cain said, “The reason our source did this is because he became very concerned about the level of contact between internet folks and people who are affiliated with the defense team.”

Wieneke told I-Team 8 that the group chat was filled with people who love true crime as she does. They talked about cases happening across the country. She claims the screenshots were obtained illegally.

Leaked group chat reveals defense team strategies in Delphi murders case

The cohosts of "The Murder Sheet Podcast" told I-Team 8 they were given thousands of messages from the group chat.

www.wishtv.com

 

[katydid23]

Completely agree with you -its all he said she said nonsense! Of course they won't release the actual messages they have. It wouldn't serve their purpose I guess.

Some screenshots were released. Can't post the source here but there are Ss's floating around of some of the actual messages.

 

[katydid23]

I don't mean this negatively in any way @katydid23, but did you feel unethical doing so? What distinguishes you, as a daughter, from a paralegal, or a youtuber, or a law professor, or Jim down the street?

I was a paid employee, working for the firm. In those days we had to do a lot of typing and copying so I had access to evidence and discovery. So I had to sign an 'ethics' contract with the office manager and was held accountable.

[I was a pre-law student at UC Berkeley, but ultimately decided not to go to law school. ]

I'd have no problem with a paralegal or a law professor, working for the defense team, doing the vetting. But I do have big problem with the jurors private info being sent to a you-tuber, or a random group of students, because they have not
been vetted themselves.

You weren't from a professional company, trained to do jury vetting, and I don't think your father did anything wrong by asking you to do so.

I was an employee of the law firm, and I was trained by them. I was NEVER allowed to share the jurors info with anyone, nor speak about that info to anyone.

Here, we have an offer to the defense by a group of persons to do the vetting. I don't even know if they vetted any jurors yet.

They hadn't vetted jurors because as they were discussing this option, the trial was postponed.

No foul yet; I haven't heard of the Discord group individuals going out and doxxing people. Am I wrong?

Some of this group were known to be shady and dox others. And being you-tubers, they were prone to leak or disseminate info widely.

 

[katydid23]

So, it's PM's word against CW's word.

IMO MOO

PM has the receipts though. He has the actual messages. CW knows that. Probably why she didnt show up to the 'Set The Record Straight' podcast.

 

[katydid23]

Honestly? We still have nothing more than he said / she said.

Not really. The actual messages do exist. People have seen some of them.

It's a sideshow. A distraction.

Kind of ironic that the defense would complain about distractions or sideshows. They have actively perpetuated many sideshows and distractions since day one. IMO

The very thing most of us say we want to avoid in this (and most other if not all other) case(s). If there is something illegal that went on, someone should deal with it. I've asked upthread who that would be - what powers that be could deal with it? The police? Judge Gull? Ethics committee? Who would deal with it and how would a party get them involved? So far, nothing seems to really have come of it in terms of consequences for the parties nor for RA's actual case. If something is going to come of it, when would we expect this to happen by?

I don't think any 'powers that be' will do anything about it publicly. But I do think it served an important purpose. I think it created some needed transparency, concerning the shady games that some of the defense employees were perpetrating. Light has been shed on the dark corners, and some people scurried away.

Regarding the family being victimized by the show. The family would probably only imagine it happening until this show came out. Shame on them for making it public. Its just as gross to put the comments out to the public as it is to make the comments in a "private" convo imo. Hopefully the family members didn't bother to listen to the podcast and hopefully none connected to to them will tell them... of course they'd also have to ignore the media outlets who have since reported on the content creators war....

It's better for them to know what is really going on than to just wonder, imo.

 

[Spartygirl]

RSBM

I underestand this viewpoint. Many share your opinion. I wonder how many who feel this way would react if the State was doing this or something similar.

Just pondering.

IMO JMO MOO

I would feel exactly the same way and be just as horrified and pis$ed off if it was the State doing this.

Either way, the whole thing stinks on all levels.
Legally, ethically and morally --

Especially for them saying it makes them "sick" to see the SMILING Photos of the girls and they can't stand seeing the photos that people post.

What kind of person/human being feels that way or says that about 2 innocent teenage girls brutally murdered ???
Answer- A horrible human being, an evil human being. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Is CW in charge?

She is an advisor and did represent RA in the State Supreme Court. So she does have some influence and connections there.

 

[TTF14]

She is an advisor and did represent RA in the State Supreme Court. So she does have some influence and connections there.

She's not the decision maker.

 

[katydid23]

She's not the decision maker.

Right, but that does not really matter, imo. She is part of the inner circle. So is MH. And the Mottas. And we got the chance to see how they are thinking, strategising and feeling about things. Super negative thoughts about the victims and their families, sketchy plans to dox the jurors, cynical ideas about creating a mistrial if necessary?

 

[photographer4]

And that^^^^ is my point. Professionals use a professional licensed service because the jurors info has to remain protected.

CW was setting up a plan to disseminate that private info to random unlicensed, inexperienced people to do that work.

Is there a standardized license required to do this sort of work? I can't seem to find info that says X is required, and X is the oversight body??