Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #195

[Tealgrove]

I wonder how many times he outright confessed to his lawyers and their staff? Why would they be omitted from it? I'd think they were not, MO

IMO he probably has. I doubt his DT would be forthcoming with that information however.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Should potentially dangerous accused child murderers be bailed and allowed to walk among the community? Maybe his lawyer's negligence played a role in his situation, delaying a speedy trial, asking for continuances, never having their client's mental health evaluated and treated properly? MO

IMO
I don't believe they should be bailed out and never said it. I am adamantly opposed to sending a person who hasn't even had a trial yet to an Indiana state prison.

Rozzi and Baldwin were ready for trial until the judge took actions that prevented that and set the trial back for months. The P dragged his feet turning over discovery.

We can't have it both ways regarding his mental health. Either Westville was doing a good job of treating his mental issues and there was no need to go outside for more evaluation; or they weren't doing a good job and he shouldn't have been kept there.

He's now in a county jail; what changed?

 

[Arkay]

View attachment 528570

I personally have zero sympathy for him as he is only suffering from these circumstances because he killed two girls. This is all his own doing because he is twisted and sick and had to be protected due to the nature of the crime. If he has ended up injured because he had been attacked then people would also moan about that. In such cases LE are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

IMO

In all candor, I also do not care if RA suffered in solitary confinement.

SOMEONE CONFINED Abby and Libby to a patch of woods, never to walk out of there again. IMO that is Richard Allen.

Not only do these side by side pictures look to me like the SAME GUY, but as we all know RA said he was on that bridge. Self-admitted to wearing a nearly identical outfit.

What are the odds? Realistically?

No one has said they saw another man, of similar appearance and similar apparel, on that bridge around that time. “Indiana men’s uniform” or no.

I don’t care if he was kept in wretched conditions. IMO they were within the Constitutional scope of not being cruel or unusual. He had access to a tablet and phone calls, food and drink and medical care.

If the jury finds him not guilty I will have to abide by that. If the jury finds that he had help, I will abide by that.

But I see the same man in both pictures, and I hope with all my heart that Abby’s courageous last act keeps her and Abby’s murderer locked up forever.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

In all candor, I also do not care if RA suffered in solitary confinement.

SOMEONE CONFINED Abby and Libby to a patch of woods, never to walk out of there again. IMO that is Richard Allen.

RSBM

But this is not just about RA. This is about all future pre-trial detainees who may or may not be guilty. JG gave the green light for the entire state of Indiana to house pre-trial (presumed innocent) detainees any way the State of Indiana wishes IMO. And without even being represented by an attorney IMO MOO JMO.

The precedent has been set and even, shockingly, championed! Not OK, IMO. Not even a little bit.

JMO MOO

 

[DoctorRose]

While I am confident that the state has substantial evidence against RA, until I actually know what that is, I’m not feeling strongly either way about his guilt. If he’s not guilty and if the evidence is somehow not as strong as I expect it to be, then yeah his being held this long like this will have been wrong imo. I know I’d lose my sanity in that situation too. And if he is guilty then I don’t feel bad for him being held but we’ll only know that in retrospect.

So yeah it’s weird. Is it the PCA that states why he was arrested? Or which documentation is it? I don’t know where that line is to hold someone on suspicion like how sure do you have to be? JMO and rambling thoughts.

 

[Vern]

Pre-Trial Detainees and their being held within State Prisons in Indiana for "Safekeeping" purposes (Administrative custody vs. "Solitary Confinement). (Indiana is not the only State that allows for this either):

Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978)​

Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978) case opinion from the US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

law.justia.com

I like that the link provides the law and the description of those Pre-Trial Detainees, their conditions etc while being held at State facilities.

As well, as per the MS Three Day hearings, it was testified to under oath that RA was also afforded other accomodations during his pre-trial detention at State. For example: he was afforded family visits in a private room (with one staff present for security purposes) for longer visitations than were afforded to convicted prisoners. He had the tablet, until he broke his, from which he could communicate and call anyone at any time etc ... He certainly was not held in Solitary Confinement.

 

[TTF14]

Pre-Trial Detainees and their being held within State Prisons in Indiana for "Safekeeping" purposes (Administrative custody vs. "Solitary Confinement):

rsbm

Respectfully, just because it was a "safekeeping" order doesn't mean he was "kept safe" (health, well, etc.) Or, IMO, that it was even the real reason. JMO IMO MOO

He seems to be doing just fine in jail, as we predicted he would all along. No need for "safekeeping" (LOL considering how he was treated!). JMO MOO IMO

 

[Vern]

RSBM

But this is not just about RA. This is about all future pre-trial detainees who may or may not be guilty. JG gave the green light for the entire state of Indiana to house pre-trial (presumed innocent) detainees any way the State of Indiana wishes IMO. And without even being represented by an attorney IMO MOO JMO.

The precedent has been set and even, shockingly, championed! Not OK, IMO. Not even a little bit.

JMO MOO

RA is not the precedent however "that has even been championed". He is neither the first nor, presumably, will he be the last. Other states also allow for Safekeeping at State Prison for Pre-Trial Detainees.

Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978)

Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978) case opinion from the US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

law.justia.com

 

[statt#1]

The following is all my opinion. All of it.

I don't know ISP Carter, but have watched video of him on numerous occasions. I'd bet my entire rock collection that man, if he was aware of another perp who participated in these murders, who was at the scene, or a group of perps in collusion, I'd bet D. Carter along with those LE folk who are/were involved in this investigation, and even LE who have come on board in the past 7 years, would be all over that.

The thing is though, the reality is, they've arrested and charged only one man.

Am I to believe this one man's accomplice(s), who was/were supposedly there on the day of the murders, who was/were at the crime scene that very day, who participated in these murders, have been left off the hook?

And lastly, for now , there is no way I'll ever buy in to the idea that RA was tortured. The word torture is a powerful word, to accuse another of engaging in torture is a serious matter, IMO. The fact that the very Judge in this case hasn't mentioned the word torture, in fact has ruled otherwise in terms of coercion and unfair treatment, IMO, should remove the idea of torture from discussion.

RA was locked up in a secure facility to keep his butt alive, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TTF14]

RA is not the precedent however. He is neither the first nor, presumably, will he be the last. Other states also allow for Safekeeping at State Prison for Pre-Trial Detainees.

Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978)

Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978) case opinion from the US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

law.justia.com

Is a "precedent" only the first and only the only?

It doesn't make it right.

IMO MOO

 

[ClearAhead]

They did nothing

IMO it also illustrates the point made by the P that the purpose of the D’s motions is to fuel SM with the notion of ‘poor, woeful, wrongfully accused RA’ instead of presenting legal and factually sound arguments to the court in his defense.

They let RA down once again by not categorizing or specifying which confessions they sought to have dismissed so now all are allowed in.

I have no respect for attorneys who land a high profile case as public defenders and go on to try to hoodwink the public into thinking they’re working hard to defend the ‘little guy’.

MOO and JMO

 

[Vern]

Is a "precedent" only the first and only the only?

It doesn't make it right.

IMO MOO

Sorry, quoted your word from your post about this being precedent setting by Judge Gull (Edited to add: it wasn't and, in any case, it was the original Judge who granted the safekeeping Order not Gull) and about all future prisoners RBBM.

RSBM

But this is not just about RA. This is about all future pre-trial detainees who may or may not be guilty. JG gave the green light for the entire state of Indiana to house pre-trial (presumed innocent) detainees any way the State of Indiana wishes IMO. And without even being represented by an attorney IMO MOO JMO.

The precedent has been set and even, shockingly, championed! Not OK, IMO. Not even a little bit.

JMO MOO

 

[sunshineray]

rsbm

Literally nobody has suggested that.

IMO MOO

It's been stated that a potentially dangerous accused double child murderer with suicidal tendencies and psychosis should not be kept in a cell by himself and under 24-hour surveillance. It's been said he shouldn't be believed because of his mental state but it's understandable that his lawyers don't want him to be evaluated. It's also been said that the best place to put him would be a county jail with less security and mental health attention. His lawyers were asking for him to be bailed too. I was merely addressing if releasing him into the community was something being considered as acceptable? I certainly don't think it is, MO

 

[Arkay]

He seems to be doing just fine in jail, as we predicted he would all along. No need for "safekeeping" (LOL considering how he was treated!). JMO MOO IMO

I’m guessing that you and I would both feel the same, if we were completely innocent, just a small-town guy wrongfully imprisoned, we wouldn’t be doing fine in jail, either.

Even if it’s not in solitary, even if it’s not safekeeping, even if it’s not prison.

If I were 100% innocent and yet behind bars, I could never be “fine.”

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I also think it’s impossible to relate to the number of confessions as well. One or two but over 60? During that period of time he had to have been confessing to virtually everyone he talked to!

I don’t see it as the prison’s fault at all. Instead I blame his defense team for doing nothing while they knew this long list of confessions was ongoing. They only had to obtain an independent psychological assessment which may’ve actually proven the conditions at the prison were harming his mental health.

Instead the D did nothing to stop RA from confessing, on and on.

Why? Probably because they didn’t want all his existing mental issues on record, none of which would cause a person to falsely confess to crimes they didn’t commit. MOO

Highlighted by me for emphasis.

I've seen similar thinking before and I question it.
Why do you think they did nothing?
What steps did they have to take to get an independent psychological assessment in Westville?
What could they have done to stop him from making confessions?
When did they learn about the confessions (other than what he said to his wife and mom)?

 

[sunshineray]

IMO
I don't believe they should be bailed out and never said it. I am adamantly opposed to sending a person who hasn't even had a trial yet to an Indiana state prison.

Rozzi and Baldwin were ready for trial until the judge took actions that prevented that and set the trial back for months. The P dragged his feet turning over discovery.

We can't have it both ways regarding his mental health. Either Westville was doing a good job of treating his mental issues and there was no need to go outside for more evaluation; or they weren't doing a good job and he shouldn't have been kept there.

He's now in a county jail; what changed?

You're right, can't have it both ways with RA's mental health. Either he has suicidal with depression and anxiety, intent on self harm upon arrival to prison or being imprisoned caused him to self harm, to be suicidal. His lawyers says it's both, so nothing he's ever confess can be trusted. Judge ruled, after reviewing everything put before her and much consideration, his depression and anxiety had no mitigating part in RA's confessions. AJMO

 

[AugustWest]

Pre-Trial Detainees and their being held within State Prisons in Indiana for "Safekeeping" purposes (Administrative custody vs. "Solitary Confinement). (Indiana is not the only State that allows for this either):

Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978)​

Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ind. 1978) case opinion from the US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

law.justia.com

I like that the link provides the law and the description of those Pre-Trial Detainees, their conditions etc while being held at State facilities.

As well, as per the MS Three Day hearings, it was testified to under oath that RA was also afforded other accomodations during his pre-trial detention at State. For example: he was afforded family visits in a private room (with one staff present for security purposes) for longer visitations than were afforded to convicted prisoners. He had the tablet, until he broke his, from which he could communicate and call anyone at any time etc ... He certainly was not held in Solitary Confinement.

Did you Shepardize this? It may not be valid anymore on the point of law you are making. This case is from 1978 and has been superseded by other case law on at least 2 occasions:

Lock v. Jenkins (1981)

Lock v. Jenkins, 641 F. 2d 488 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1981 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.co.in

Laster v. Duckworth (1983)

Laster v. Duckworth, 554 F. Supp. 1184 - Dist. Court, ND Indiana 1983 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.co.in

ETA: Shepardizing definition:

Shepard's Citations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cyber sleuth]

No one has said they saw another man, of similar appearance and similar apparel, on that bridge around that time. “Indiana men’s uniform” or no.

Snipped for focus.
Not only did no one see another man during that time. The 4 juveniles ( 3 being cited on the PCA) were on the trails during the time period RA later adapted his time (12-1:30pm) and never saw him until they were leaving and he was entering.
They did not see him at all during their time on the trails preceding their encounter when he was seen entering the trails near Freedkm Bridge around 1:30pm. In fact he was the only man they saw during the lengthy period they were on the trail. They also stated he matched the man in LG’s video.
They entered the trails near Freedom Bridge walked to MHB and took a picture at 12:47pm of the bridge and then walked back to Freedom Bridge taking a picture of the bench at 1:27pm before encountering RA.
IMO He couldn’t have been walking on the trails, looking at his stock ticker and sitting on benches from 12-1:30pm and not been seen by the juvenile witnesses several times.
His 12-1:30 story is just that. A lie IMO. This is damning.
https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

 

[TTF14]

Snipped for focus.
Not only did no one see another man during that time. The 4 juveniles ( 3 being cited on the PCA) were on the trails during the time period RA later adapted his time (12-1:30pm) and never saw him until they were leaving and he was entering.
They did not see him at all during their time on the trails preceding their encounter when he was seen entering the trails near Freedkm Bridge around 1:30pm. In fact he was the only man they saw during the lengthy period they were on the trail. They also stated he matched the man in LG’s video.
They entered the trails near Freedom Bridge walked to MHB and took a picture at 12:47pm of the bridge and then walked back to Freedom Bridge taking a picture of the bench at 1:27pm before encountering RA.
IMO He couldn’t have been walking on the trails, looking at his stock ticker and sitting on benches from 12-1:30pm and not been seen by the juvenile witnesses several times.
His 12-1:30 story is just that. A lie IMO. This is damning.
https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

Yes, this is indeed what the PCA says.

 

[ClearAhead]

Highlighted by me for emphasis.

I've seen similar thinking before and I question it.
Why do you think they did nothing?
What steps did they have to take to get an independent psychological assessment in Westville?
What could they have done to stop him from making confessions?
When did they learn about the confessions (other than what he said to his wife and mom)?

A defense team petitioning the court to request to have an additional psychological assessment completed doesn’t seem out of question. At least it could be said they tried. Did we see such a motion? No, only asking for him to be moved contrary to the protective order.

Especially because the D outright alleged the prison along their Odinist guards were harming him, it makes little sense for them to have been satisfied to rely on an assessment of the psychologist employed by the same prison while he was spewing out one confession after another to anyone who would listen.

If the D sincerely believe the prison caused RA’s mental health to go off the rails IMO they did a poor job of protecting his rights. JMO