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

[girlhasnoname]

Your comment reminds me of something that was mentioned on the recent MS podcast. I’m probably not quoting it 100% correctly but it got me thinking...

Some might believe Baldwin and/or Rossi are the greatest defense attorneys in the world and walk on water, but the fact is regardless of a person’s perception of them, it is not synonymous to whether RA is actually guilty or innocent of the crimes he’s accused of committing. The court simply assigned them to defend an indigent client, they did not choose him.

So I do wonder if people who defend RA are truly convinced of his innocence or if they’re defending the reputations of B&R? And if RA is found guilty, that doesn’t necessarily prove B&R are lousy attorneys. A conviction is simply a matter of overwhelming evidence.

Conversely, if R&B are brilliant attorneys, does that mean RA must’ve been wrongly accused and deserves to walk — if he indeed committed the murders of Libby and Abby?

Just something to think about…..

MOO

I respect and admire vigorous and competent Defense Attorneys, what I cannot abide are the ones that knowingly use dirty tricks and misconduct to 'win' at all costs. I've never seen anything like R&B on any cases I've followed. Judge Gull had a legitimate reason to be concerned about their representation, if she'd only handled it procedurally correct we wouldn't be here today IMO.

I don't believe R&B genuinely care and are so deeply invested emotionally with RA. I think they care about their notoriety and fame and what comes after the trial for them $$$$ (books, TV specials, maybe movies?).

RA put two local defense lawyers on a world wide stage and instead of showing integrity, professional and admirable behavior they have shown the exact opposite.

They should have taken a lesson from AT in the BK Idaho 4 case.

JMO

 

[Salah11]

Do we know when they are all back in court next?

 

[ClearAhead]

I think they are heavily influenced by the recent Karen Read strategy and the Barry Morphew dismissal in 2022

The former strategy we have discussed. The later approach was to attempt to overwhelm the court and prosecution with misleading and sprawling motions.

I think Scott Reisch is correct that they over litigated it whereas in the Morphew case the defence was much more skilled in bamboozling the court about discovery violations and supposed alternate suspects.

MOO

These might be the reasons for Judge Gull’s short and brief rulings. She sees through it and isn’t into playing games. MOO

 

[mrjitty]

These might be the reasons for Judge Gull’s short and brief rulings. She sees through it and isn’t into playing games. MOO

I think it's just how she rolls. And it got her into trouble with SCOIN when she hadn't take the trouble to establish a proper record. SCOIN couldn't take note of the true situation with MW because Judge Gull didn't get that evidence on the record. imo

 

[FrostedGlass]

Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how many wrongful convictions were a result of juries being presented with hearsay, speculation, rumors, conjecture or theory? Then perhaps it will become clear why only admissible evidence is allowed in the courtroom.

ETA
Hypothetical, say the defense presents a SODDI theory and RA is acquitted. Doesn’t it stand to reason the public perceives the SODDI is the guilty party and justice to be served, that person ought to face charges accordingly? But wait, there’s no admissible evidence upon which to base a conviction, only hearsay, speculation, rumors, conjecture and theory. The SODDI has no way of ever being exonerated. MOO

Well, I agree with you that is kind of hypothetical.
You can read exactly what happened in each of those cases.

 

[FrostedGlass]

...
So I do wonder if people who defend RA are truly convinced of his innocence or if they’re defending the reputations of B&R? And if RA is found guilty, that doesn’t necessarily prove B&R are lousy attorneys. A conviction is simply a matter of overwhelming evidence.
...

MOO

RSBM for focus:
To answer your question: IMO some believe he's innocent and others believe B&R are doing what they are paid to do. Then, there are the ones who feel really strong about the rights of a person who has not been found guilty. Some have concerns about all of the above.

I would really like to hear what evidence both sides have and make my decision based on that.

 

[Salah11]

RSBM for focus:
To answer your question: IMO some believe he's innocent and others believe B&R are doing what they are paid to do. Then, there are the ones who feel really strong about the rights of a person who has not been found guilty. Some have concerns about all of the above.

I would really like to hear what evidence both sides have and make my decision based on that.

Which is all well and good, but then that doesn’t give the defence the right to blame people and destroy lives without any proof which they have none of as clearly shown.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I think this firearm in .40 caliber comes standard with 12 round mags. A 10 round magazine would kind of make sense, but the 12 round wouldn't make a huge difference if buying ammo in a 20 round box, you'd maybe load each mag with 10 rounds....assuming a loaded magazine is inserted in to the firearm, then the slide is racked, that would leave one round in the chamber of the gun, and 9 left in the magazine.

My guess/speculation and it's totally just that, if BG had 9 in the magazine, and one in the chamber, and racked the slide at the CS, then that would result in of course, that one bullet found on the ground at the CS, and the 8 rounds left in the magazine, BECAUSE when you rack the slide, one bullet ejects, and then another is chambered. So, 10 rounds, rack slide, 9 left in mag. and one in chamber, ready to go, then at CS, rack slide, one round pops out on to the ground, another chambers in the gun, leaving 8 in the magazine.

Keep in mind, this is all conjecture, and may easily not be fact in this case, but kinda makes sense, to me anyway.

The ammo could have been purchased in different box sizes, but a hunch is, being a self defense ammo, it was purchased in a 20 round box, which would make sense too, as two ten round magazines would be loaded from that one box, (or 10 rounds loaded in to a 12 round magazine) which jives with what is listed as being found on the aforementioned document.

I had to think about this a little bit. Since you and @Thepumalives came up with the same size of magazine, I'll go with 12.

I don't think the cartridge in the keepsake box had anything to do with the murders. For all we know, it could have been one his wife saved. Maybe he taught her how to shoot and that was her bullseye bullet. I wonder if that one was even mentioned in the test results?

There was one cartridge still in the gun; I'll assume it was RA's habit to do so. It's interesting to discuss but mostly it's just a dead end at this point. IMO

 

[MollyDDD]

"statt#1 said:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that if SODDI, and there is evidence to that fact, then why hasn't SODDI been named and/or arrested? Why hasn't DT, Prosecution, FBI, ISP, or any other authority brought charges against this person?

My opinion on the matter, NODDI.....NO other dude did it "

Am I really to believe that no LE, FBI, Attorney, or any other player in this case that had direct evidence of another player's involvement in these murders would keep that information from coming to light? Why would they do that? Who would protect the identity of another murderer in this case? I don't get it.

Perhaps all they have is indirect evidence and someone wants to keep it that way for fear of exposing themselves or others. JMO

 

[statt#1]

I had to think about this a little bit. Since you and @Thepumalives came up with the same size of magazine, I'll go with 12.

I don't think the cartridge in the keepsake box had anything to do with the murders. For all we know, it could have been one his wife saved. Maybe he taught her how to shoot and that was her bullseye bullet. I wonder if that one was even mentioned in the test results?

There was one cartridge still in the gun; I'll assume it was RA's habit to do so. It's interesting to discuss but mostly it's just a dead end at this point. IMO

It may or may not be a dead end.

If the bullet found at the scene is a 40 caliber Winchester Supreme Elite, and the bullet found in the keepsake box as noted is also a 40 caliber Winchester Supreme Elite, and the magazines were both loaded with 40 caliber Winchester Supreme Elite, and all bullets were able to be shown to be from the same empty box/lot of Winchester Supreme Elite, I could see how this could be troublesome for the accused.

If they analyzed the powder, found the exact ratio of components in the powder, of those bullets, maybe even counted the number of grains of powder in each bullet, I can see some comparative analysis going on there too.

Then there is of course the extraction/ejection markings, and the idea that the empty box, if it were a box of 20, and the number of bullets retrieved equals said amount (which by my count it does), that too could be an interesting thing to reveal to a jury.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Which is all well and good, but then that doesn’t give the defence the right to blame people and destroy lives without any proof which they have none of as clearly shown.

IMO lives were ruined, as a result of this case, long before the D's and RA came into view.

I agree with you that it's not right but there's a difference between what's morally right and what's legally right. If it's found that the Ds actions are legally wrong, I'm sure we will hear about it in the future.

 

[statt#1]

Perhaps all they have is indirect evidence and someone wants to keep it that way for fear of exposing themselves or others. JMO

Or....perhaps they have no evidence, as ruled by the Judge/Court in this case.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Or....perhaps they have no evidence, as ruled by the Judge/Court in this case.

Apparently they do have some evidence, mentioned by JG:
(snip from order on 09/04/24)

"The Court will not permit the evidence submitted by the defense in support of their arguments regarding third-party perpetrators in the trial of this cause as the probative value of such evidence is greatly outweighed by confusion of the issues and its potential to mislead the jury. The Court will allow that evidence to support an offer of proof at the trial if one is made by Counsel."

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

08C01-2210-MR-000001

 

[tlcya]

Apparently they do have some evidence, mentioned by JG:
(snip from order on 09/04/24)

"The Court will not permit the evidence submitted by the defense in support of their arguments regarding third-party perpetrators in the trial of this cause as the probative value of such evidence is greatly outweighed by confusion of the issues and its potential to mislead the jury. The Court will allow that evidence to support an offer of proof at the trial if one is made by Counsel."

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

08C01-2210-MR-000001

I take that to mean IF the DT should come up with some sort of compelling evidence at trial to warrant revisiting third party perps the judge would allow it, if it met the standard of being probative.

That doesn't indicate to me any evidence exists or that JG believes it does. It is simply an opening for the DT to revisit the 3rd party perp stuff IF and WHEN they offer compelling evidence to do so.

 

[statt#1]

Apparently they do have some evidence, mentioned by JG:
(snip from order on 09/04/24)

"The Court will not permit the evidence submitted by the defense in support of their arguments regarding third-party perpetrators in the trial of this cause as the probative value of such evidence is greatly outweighed by confusion of the issues and its potential to mislead the jury. The Court will allow that evidence to support an offer of proof at the trial if one is made by Counsel."

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

08C01-2210-MR-000001

I would think the term 'probative value' to be of importance in that quoted section. And I still hold to the opinion that no evidence exists to prove another actor or actors murdered these girls. Once again, if said evidence did exist, then why is it that no LE, FBI, Attorney, nor any other entity has come forth to expose it? And to clarify, my comments here are in the spirit of discussing procedure/law, and not persons.

probative value

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ClearAhead]

Apparently they do have some evidence, mentioned by JG:
(snip from order on 09/04/24)

"The Court will not permit the evidence submitted by the defense in support of their arguments regarding third-party perpetrators in the trial of this cause as the probative value of such evidence is greatly outweighed by confusion of the issues and its potential to mislead the jury. The Court will allow that evidence to support an offer of proof at the trial if one is made by Counsel."

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

08C01-2210-MR-000001

In all the vast volumes of D’s filing, they just neglected to mention this evidence?

Judge Gull did not mention they have some evidence. MS said the Judge likely included this option as a courtesy to the D so her trial ruling against can be used if the case is later appealed.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

IMO lives were ruined, as a result of this case, long before the D's and RA came into view.

I agree with you that it's not right but there's a difference between what's morally right and what's legally right. If it's found that the Ds actions are legally wrong, I'm sure we will hear about it in the future.

Morally right does matter. It might not get the defense team disbarred, but it matters.
It is not OK for anyone, in any profession, in my opinion, to purposely manufacture false and misleading information. Would you want your stock broker to type up a document filled with falsehoods touting some stock as being super great so you’ll buy it? Your banker? Your accountant? Your car repairman, teacher, doctor, dentist? These people would go to jail for doing that, so why is it OK for defense lawyers? Society depends on all of believing that people are being upfront and honest with each other.
Ironic that the profession charged with finding truth, allows the truth to be played with so loosely. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
The defense had a choice. They chose to lie and mislead and it totals up to zero. Nothing for RA. In the wake they accused innocent people, defamed them, caused needless suffering for the victim’s families, lots more.
They could have vigorously defended RA without resorting to this. This fiasco is entirely on them and they should not be applauded for it.

 

[statt#1]

Morally right does matter. It might not get the defense team disbarred, but it matters.
It is not OK for anyone, in any profession, in my opinion, to purposely manufacture false and misleading information. Would you want your stock broker to type up a document filled with falsehoods touting some stock as being super great so you’ll buy it? Your banker? Your accountant? Your car repairman, teacher, doctor, dentist? These people would go to jail for doing that, so why is it OK for defense lawyers? Society depends on all of believing that people are being upfront and honest with each other.
Ironic that the profession charged with finding truth, allows the truth to be played with so loosely. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
The defense had a choice. They chose to lie and mislead and it totals up to zero. Nothing for RA. In the wake they accused innocent people, defamed them, caused needless suffering for the victim’s families, lots more.
They could have vigorously defended RA without resorting to this. This fiasco is entirely on them and they should not be applauded for it.

This is the crux of my opinion. As spelled out in the link, quoted from the link, and bolded by me....

"If the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the dangers of “unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence” then this evidence might be excluded."

probative value

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ClearAhead]

Morally right does matter. It might not get the defense team disbarred, but it matters.
It is not OK for anyone, in any profession, in my opinion, to purposely manufacture false and misleading information. Would you want your stock broker to type up a document filled with falsehoods touting some stock as being super great so you’ll buy it? Your banker? Your accountant? Your car repairman, teacher, doctor, dentist? These people would go to jail for doing that, so why is it OK for defense lawyers? Society depends on all of believing that people are being upfront and honest with each other.
Ironic that the profession charged with finding truth, allows the truth to be played with so loosely. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
The defense had a choice. They chose to lie and mislead and it totals up to zero. Nothing for RA. In the wake they accused innocent people, defamed them, caused needless suffering for the victim’s families, lots more.
They could have vigorously defended RA without resorting to this. This fiasco is entirely on them and they should not be applauded for it.

I agree wholeheartedly. And it was the defense team who ensured the “hearsay, rumour, speculation, conjecture, and theory” become publicly known and spread by ‘accidentally’ submitting the FM to the Clerk at about 2am knowing the media would get hold of it before it could be sealed.

 

[justtrish]

Looking at the search warrant return just now and I see something listed as "paper wrapped wooden weave box containing 2 "Audiovox" device...

Any ideas what those are? I googled Audiovox and it isn't clear to me what this could be.