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

[photographer4]

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.

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.

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

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.

What if the youtuber in question was ALSO a paralegal, or... a Social Worker - which I believe actually a social worker of some sort was in that chat group, no? Wonder if the social worker was licensed by the overseeing body? Otherwise, they may not legally be allowed to call themselves one (legally, where I live, you can only call yourself a Social WOrker if you are a registered member of the oversight board, otherwise, you might be family worker, intake worker etc etc). I cannot remember the name of the "social worker" involved or where they were from - and no link sooo mooooo but you can verify the need for a license by googling Carolina USA social work oversight....

ETA: i'm not saying anyone of the youtubers also happens to be a social worker - its a generalized question: what if someone volunteering also happened to have a degree of some sort? Since I don't know what if any education / certification is required to become "licensed" to be doing the sort of work being discussed, I'm just asking.

 

[photographer4]

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.

Why should we take HIS word for it? Why can't we see it for ourselves? In entirity?

 

[photographer4]

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

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

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.


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

People have seen them. Great! Why haven't they been released to the public then?

 

[justtrish]

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?

You know what we didn't hear about?? Any concern that poor RA is innocent and being railroaded. No talking about how can we prove he didn't do this or what evidence do we have that shows he couldn't be BG. No just doxing jurors, recognizing that the Odin theory proposed was bogus and had no weight, and creating a mistrial?? Why would they want to do that?? Why would they not want a trial, where he could be found not guilty based on evidence (or a lack thereof if that is what the case may be) This is where I have a hard time because a fair trial yes, but winning at any and all cost just to "win".. I can't support that or any of these back handed ideas to manipulate the trial. Because what if RA really did it? Do any of them care about that or just holding to their publicly stated opinions about him and not wanting to back track?

PS: Sounds like that is exactly why the guy backed out of this and shared the account with MS. He tried to voice an opposing opinion and he was shot down. He didn't feel comfortable with what they were doing and posting and was worried that he would be linked to what they were willing to do and say. He didn't like the fact they wouldn't even entertain any other ideas or wouldn't question things about RA. He opted to shut it down so he was no longer tied to these views and these tactics and to protect himself in the event they posted or did something from his account that would be connected to him as well. Seems like he made a good choice.

 

[susane7]

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?

In today's episode, MS answered to Cara in the first 15 minutes. They don't mind the comments about their apperance but they are angry with the lie about their source - Paul. He is the owner of the account and she said he committed a crime as if he have hacked in one the girls account's. I agree with them that her objective is that people don't discuss the content of the messages since they are embarassing for her. They also said B and R should have be grateful to Paul because now they know who is talking with randoms in the internet and can't keep quiet. I agree. If they are smart, they will full stop and tell the people they are working with not to talk about the case with another people in the internet.

 

[TTF14]

In today's episode, MS answered to Cara in the first 15 minutes. They don't mind the comments about their apperance but they are angry with the lie about their source - Paul. He is the owner of the account and she said he committed a crime as if he have hacked in one the girls account's. I agree with them that her objective is that people don't discuss the content of the messages since they are embarassing for her. They also said B and R should have grateful to Paul because now they know who is talking with randoms in the internet and can't keep quiet. I agree. If they are smart, they will full stop and tell the people they are working with not to talk about the case with another people in the internet.

I really wish the MS youtubers would just go on a live with the people they are accusing (who have offered to talk like adults about it) and get it all out in the open.

And I think we ALL would be embarrassed to have our private conversations made public the way youtubers Aine and Kevin did to CW so I really do not blame her for being mad. It was a crappy thing to do and not at all professional.

They got a headline out of it though, so mission accomplished. Future juors may see it and be influenced. Clap clap clap.

IMO MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

What if the youtuber in question was ALSO a paralegal, or... a Social Worker - which I believe actually a social worker of some sort was in that chat group, no? Wonder if the social worker was licensed by the overseeing body? Otherwise, they may not legally be allowed to call themselves one (legally, where I live, you can only call yourself a Social WOrker if you are a registered member of the oversight board, otherwise, you might be family worker, intake worker etc etc). I cannot remember the name of the "social worker" involved or where they were from - and no link sooo mooooo but you can verify the need for a license by googling Carolina USA social work oversight....

ETA: i'm not saying anyone of the youtubers also happens to be a social worker - its a generalized question: what if someone volunteering also happened to have a degree of some sort? Since I don't know what if any education / certification is required to become "licensed" to be doing the sort of work being discussed, I'm just asking.

One of them IS actually a social worker.

Pretty concerning when considering the absolute vile things she has said about the victims including that the photos of the dead girls were not as shocking or gruesome as she thought and that she was upset at the photos of the,,2 girls looking happy and smiling. She said it makes her sick.

I thought social workers basically advocate for victims, not disparage them.

She referred to BP as a Mafia boss and mused as to whether or not NMCL was doing blo# off of the judges "thunder thighs". All the while referring to an attorneys spank bank.

She is a bottom feeder. Hoping that she finds herself under review by the powers that be.

All of this on the podcast.

 

[photographer4]

One of them IS actually a social worker.

Pretty concerning when considering the absolute vile things she has said about the victims including that the photos of the dead girls were not as shocking or gruesome as she thought and that she was upset at the photos of the,,2 girls looking happy and smiling. She said it makes her sick.

I thought social workers basically advocate for victims, not disparage them.

She referred to BP as a Mafia boss and mused as to whether or not NMCL was doing blo# off of the judges "thunder thighs". All the while referring to an attorneys spank bank.

She is a bottom feeder. Hoping that she finds herself under review by the powers that be.

All of this on the podcast.

Why do so many people think social workers are some sort of super human saints? Some are, sure. Many however, are not. Again though, what are her actual credentials? Is she licensed? Just curious. I wonder if her work place will "cancel" her now for her given her remarks about the family?

 

[Ravenmoon]

Why should we take HIS word for it? Why can't we see it for ourselves? In entirity?

Did you tune into Mottas response?
He didn't deny anything.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Why do so many people think social workers are some sort of super human saints? Some are, sure. Many however, are not. Again though, what are her actual credentials? Is she licensed? Just curious. I wonder if her work place will "cancel" her now for her given her remarks about the family?

Maybe you should look into it? You have as much capability to do that as anyone here.

No one is super human, but ANYONE that acts hateful towards 2 murdered girls has no business being a social worker.

Why would anyone defend her behavior?

 

[susane7]

I really wish the MS youtubers would just go on a live with the people they are accusing (who have offered to talk like adults about it) and get it all out in the open.

And I think we ALL would be embarrassed to have our private conversations made public the way youtubers Aine and Kevin did to CW so I really do not blame her for being mad. It was a crappy thing to do and not at all professional.

They got a headline out of it though, so mission accomplished. Future juors may see it and be influenced. Clap clap clap.

IMO MOO

Cara being mad that her embarassing messages are public doesn't give her right to lie about how the messages were acessed and that the owner of the account commited a crime.

She is an attorney. She should know better than WRITTING things that she didn't want to see public. Attorneys usually are very careful with what they write in my experience. It wasn't not very smart from their part.

 

[TTF14]

Did you tune into Mottas response?
He didn't deny anything.

And he shouldn't. Private conversations should remain private, as he said. He owns what he says. Good on him.

IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Why do so many people think social workers are some sort of super human saints? Some are, sure. Many however, are not. Again though, what are her actual credentials? Is she licensed? Just curious. I wonder if her work place will "cancel" her now for her given her remarks about the family?

She is an associate licensed clinical social worker. She does not have her full license, and is working towards getting it while practicing under the supervision of an experienced LCSW.

I’m not sure they’ll cancel her for her remarks about the families, but might for some of the comments she allegedly made that could be construed as practicing outside of her scope (such as various diagnoses she gave regarding the judge, “in [her] professional opinion”).

There are pretty rigid ethics codes, and I’m actually pretty shocked she was behaving like this with a license that’s so easily revoked.

LCSW Associate - North Carolina Social Work Certification and Licensure Board

Pursuant to the North Carolina Social Worker Certification and Licensure Act, NCGS § 90B, it is unlawful to engage in or offer to engage in the practice of

ncswboard.gov

Everything except for the definition of LCSWA is my opinion

 

[Ravenmoon]

And he shouldn't. Private conversations should remain private, as he said. He owns what he says. Good on him.

IMO MOO

Absolutely.
I wouldn't want him to make himself look any worse, as if that is a possibility.

 

[susane7]

She is an associate licensed clinical social worker. She does not have her full license, and is working towards getting it while practicing under the supervision of an experienced LCSW.

I’m not sure they’ll cancel her for her remarks about the families, but might for some of the comments she allegedly made that could be construed as practicing outside of her scope (such as various diagnoses she gave regarding the judge, “in [her] professional opinion”).

There are pretty rigid ethics codes, and I’m actually pretty shocked she was behaving like this with a license that’s so easily revoked.

LCSW Associate - North Carolina Social Work Certification and Licensure Board

Pursuant to the North Carolina Social Worker Certification and Licensure Act, NCGS § 90B, it is unlawful to engage in or offer to engage in the practice of

ncswboard.gov

Everything except for the definition of LCSWA is my opinion

I'm not sure but I think MS filed some complains/reports about her.

 

[photographer4]

Did you tune into Mottas response?
He didn't deny anything.

Nope. Have listened to the first 24 mins of Ms before I decided not to bother. I generally don’t follow podcasts or YouTube’s - I much prefer to read things for myself for the most part. They’re all really throwing drama into the wind to see what sticks I think.

I’ll be more interested if some sort of consequences arrive as a result of any of this to the due process gang or to murder sheets. To me it’s a lot of gossip and he said she said.

 

[photographer4]

Maybe you should look into it? You have as much capability to do that as anyone here.

No one is super human, but ANYONE that acts hateful towards 2 murdered girls has no business being a social worker.

Why would anyone defend her behavior?

Regarding this: in keeping with ToS I won’t sleuth her. I actually don’t care who she is or what her line of work is. If she’s from out of state, does she even know the family personally? How many of the content creators actually do? They’re all entitled to their opinions even if we don’t agree or wish we hadn’t heard them. Unless she engaged in slander or libel or some other unlawful act…. Then so be it. Can’t really stop her. I wonder if she would have a case for wrongful dismissal if she were fired for this since it has nothing to do with whatever work she does? She could be a policy maker social worker vs directly case managing or advocacy for anyone. Who knows? She is entitled to her opinions.

 

[TTF14]

Absolutely.
I wouldn't want him to make himself look any worse, as if that is a possibility.

Oh I think he's awesome. I have learned so much about the law from him. And his beautiful wife. They're so smart.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Cara being mad that her embarassing messages are public doesn't give her right to lie about how the messages were acessed and that the owner of the account commited a crime.

She is an attorney. She should know better than WRITTING things that she didn't want to see public. Attorneys usually are very careful with what they write in my experience. It wasn't not very smart from their part.

Can we prove she lied? What makes her dishonest but the “leaker” is telling a truthful account while wearing a halo? (He could be. Idk who’s telling the truth. The content creators want us to take their word for it).

 

[susane7]

Can we prove she lied? What makes her dishonest but the “leaker” is telling a truthful account while wearing a halo? (He could be. Idk who’s telling the truth. The content creators want us to take their word for it).

Like I said, the two girls made a post a few weeks ago complaining they didn't have access to any of the accounts because the owner, Paul, blocked them out. Common sense.

Ps- I don't even understand the hacking thing if all the three had access to the account. Until the owner decided to block the other 2 out.