Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #193

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Snipped by me, for focus.

Do we know what kind of psychotropic medication we are talking about there?

The word 'psychotropic' is powerful. But many substances, from mild anti-depressants like sertraline/fluoxetine, to nicotine (!), to clonazepam/diazepam (basically benzos) belong to that category. If someone is in manic state, breaking items and trying to hurt themselves/the guards, I understand injecting them with some kind of benzo/antipsychotic.

Now, if the proposition is that someone on benzos/antidepressants is more likely to confess? I would argue the opposite. They are most likely to become lethargic, because, sedatives, well. Cause sedation. Less likely to have the energy to, according to Dr Wala, anxiously ask for their therapist to call their family, and stay while they confess, IMO. Lithium, for example, is more likely to give you hard to understand, slurred speech than make you vulnerable to suggestions.

Again, it all depends on what type of psychotropic medication we are talking about, but IMO the most likely meds would not have been a contributing factor to the confessions. This is a list of common side effects for every psychotropic drug: https://www.hhs.texas.gov/sites/def...Psychotropic-Medications-and-Side-Effects.pdf
Could he have had a paradoxical effect if he was on benzos?
 
Well, he's innocent until proven guilty BARD.

Funny thing is, there's a lot of people out there who focus on the above line, yet never query/question a single thing the Defence has put out there --- just accept what the Defence has to say at face value 10 000% (the now-debunked by testimony under oath Frank's One anybody?). Nary a peep of questionning about any single one of the Defence's bits that don't fit the testified to facts we've learned thus far from the State (blood spatter, hanging, etc etc). That's not being "impartial" either IMO. And, IMO some of them have obviously already decided that RA is not guilty under any circumstance and despite any evidence that will come out at trial (because - to be clear - the State's evidence is still under seal for the most part).

Impartial jurors do swear that they are and can remain impartial until they've heard all the testimony and seen all of the evidence. Those impartial jurors will then see, hear and view the evidence in this trial. All of the evidence. They will question/consider what evidence the state brings forth and it will also query/consider what the defence brings forth. Then it will weigh them. Then it will render it's verdict as to their belief.

IMO, if impartial jurors need to rely on believing conspiracy theories and that every person who testifies (and had testified in hearings) under oath is a perjuror and liar who've been complicit since 2017 in setting up a man to take a fall for a murder he didn't commit at his trial years later to counter every single piece of physical, forensic, video and eye witness evidence, they may just find that unreasonable.

Again, some of that evidence was recovered at the crime scene in 2017 (bullet, RAs original statement etc) ... just why in heck would they wait years to finally arrest and try the guy they apparently have been conspiring to set up since 2017.

Why do you think they waited?
 
Wala cannot testify to it for obvious reasons but I do wonder if some of their chats involved RA confessing to her or elaborating upon confessions he made to others and whether any details divulged aligned with the facts of the case.
I believe she can testify to what she heard, there's a statute of law that allows her to do that? Hasn't this been discussed here in detail?
 
I believe she can testify to what she heard, there's a statute of law that allows her to do that? Hasn't this been discussed here in detail?
I have no idea if that is true or not. I was not present for those discussions.

There was a time period of several months that I bowed out of participating in this thread as the endless debate of whether Gull should recuse herself or be removed from the case raged on.

I have no wish to research the topic but assumed because of patient confidentiality she couldn't disclose the exact nature of their conversations unless someone was in imminent danger based on the content thereof.

That is my assumption only.
 
I have no idea if that is true or not. I was not present for those discussions.

There was a time period of several months that I bowed out of participating in this thread as the endless debate of whether Gull should recuse herself or be removed from the case raged on.

I have no wish to research the topic but assumed because of patient confidentiality she couldn't disclose the exact nature of their conversations unless someone was in imminent danger based on the content thereof.

That is my assumption only.
"The filing cites a law with a specific exception to that rule: “A psychologist licensed under this article may not disclose any information acquired from persons with whom the psychologist has dealt in a professional capacity, except under the following circumstances: Trials for homicide when the disclosure relates directly to the fact or immediate circumstances of said homicide.”


State's motion was granted for her records of RA.

Order Issued

State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (mental health records) filed March 14, 2024 granted without hearing. State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (medical records) filed March 14, 2024, granted without hearing.

Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ

Order Signed:
04/02/2024
 
"The filing cites a law with a specific exception to that rule: “A psychologist licensed under this article may not disclose any information acquired from persons with whom the psychologist has dealt in a professional capacity, except under the following circumstances: Trials for homicide when the disclosure relates directly to the fact or immediate circumstances of said homicide.”


State's motion was granted for her records of RA.

Order Issued

State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (mental health records) filed March 14, 2024 granted without hearing. State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (medical records) filed March 14, 2024, granted without hearing.

Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ

Order Signed:
04/02/2024
interesting, thank you for that. So we may yet know exactly what RA has had to say to Wala about the crime.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
162
Guests online
1,696
Total visitors
1,858

Forum statistics

Threads
602,517
Messages
18,141,737
Members
231,419
Latest member
FlyingHorses4
Back
Top