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

[AugustWest]

I misspoke and I follow you, but my question remains the same. DT wanted that stuff in state did not. Is there any advantage to the DT not playing all their available cards to see that they got in what they wanted? Is there any advantage to not play those cards until trial?

I am experienced in elder law, not criminal, so my knowledge of that topic is limited to what I learn following cases. Thanks for being willing to answer our questions in this case.

One would be to make sure you have all offers of proof on the record for appeal. Another would be that offers of proof are made outside the presence of a jury, so you limit exposure to prejudicial information given to them.

ETA: I don't want to go too deeply into motions in limine, procedure and strategy, but here is a good read on that subject

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1825&context=klj

 

[Seattle1]

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.

After seeing more of what I refer to as 'defense strategy by false and misleading information or alternate facts,' I recently learned attorneys are actually given what is called "litigation privilege" (credit @AugustWest from another thread discussion).

What Is Litigation Privilege?​

While the precise extent of litigation privilege may be indeterminate, a number of cases lay a foundation establishing the privilege's scope. Litigation privilege is an absolute privilege yielding complete immunity from defamation allegations, and therefore the classification of communications that may be protected by litigation privilege is necessarily narrow. Litigation privilege generally only extends to defamatory communications involving litigants or other participants in a trial authorized by law. 53 C.J.S Libel & Slander §72 at 132 (1987). The defamatory communications must be made during or prior to a judicial proceeding and have some connection or logical relation to that proceeding. Id. Litigation privilege extends to out-of-court communications between opposing counsel, between attorneys and their clients, and between attorneys representing different plaintiffs in lawsuits against the same defendant. However, as we shall see in the discussion of Edelman, the privilege does not extend to persons without an interest in the lawsuit unless the communication furthers a recognized public interest.

This broad scope of attorney litigation privilege is memorialized in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states that:

An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish false and defamatory matter of another concerning communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceeding. §586 at 247 (1997).

Litigation privilege is in accord with the public interest of granting citizens the utmost freedom to the courts of justice in their efforts to attain settlement. Id. at Comment a, 247.

More on 'Use of Litigation Privilege' at the link below.

Boundaries of Litigation Privilege

 

[shonyakay]

That's a good link, but still, in my mind doesn't answer the question. Maybe I'm just missing the point completely. Help me out here Exactly where is the evidence? And why is it being kept from coming to light? You know, the evidence that someone other than the accused murdered these girls? I opine it's not out there, and never came to light, because there is none.

"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."

At the hearings, evidence was introduced showing where these other men (Defense's alternative "suspects") were that day. My guess is it shows they were not in Delphi. You can't be in two places at once.

 

[iamshadow21]

So what’s the defenses next step realistically here?

Like eating an elephant. One bite at a time.

Look at the discovery. Come up with a strategy to handle a specific piece of evidence in the courtroom. Repeat.

MOO

 

[tlcya]

One would be to make sure you have all offers of proof on the record for appeal. Another would be that offers of proof are made outside the presence of a jury, so you limit exposure to prejudicial information given to them.

ETA: I don't want to go too deeply into motions in limine, procedure and strategy, but here is a good read on that subject

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1825&context=klj

interesting, thank you.

 

[Boxer]

He clearly has common sense. You can’t just claim Odins did it, you actually have to provide some kind of proof and the defence failed to provide any. The only person on that bridge at the time in question was RA.

Moo

Yes. Basically thwy were saying some Odin's did it because ... sticks.

 

[Salah11]

Yes. Basically thwy were saying some Odin's did it because ... sticks.

Don’t forget the hand print that was apparently a Letter “F”. I am assuming Stevie Wonder was a CSI agent that day if that was considered a Letter.

Moo

 

[shonyakay]

I will also search for the article IIRC, that said FBI helped profile and support that 2019 presser.

And I may be the odd duck out, but I think Libby & Abby were his targets that day,

Nobody else.

He walked with a purpose, per affidavit, and in MO, on a mission

Page 3 - https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf
JMO

If you find info about the FBI helping with the 2019 presser, when the second sketch was released, please post it. If that is the case then it just means I was provided wrong info by someone who attended the hearngs.

I think he walked with a purpose because he intended to commit a crime. What exactly he had premeditated? SA? Murder? Both? I don't know. I will wait to hear more info at the trial.

I believe the four girls weren't harmed because they were in a larger group and they were headed out of the trails when he saw them.

In regards to Betsy Blair, I don't know if he even saw her. If he did, it's possible he headed to follow her. I believe he was heading away from the bridge when he spotted Libby and Abby.

Betsy seen the girls pass by her when she headed back to her car and on LG's video, Abby mentioned something to the effect of, "He's right behind me, isn't he?" So I believe they already passed by him before they got on the bridge.

I believe Libby and Abby became the targets when he saw them heading toward the bridge that day. He knew he could trap them.

Regarding the Anthony Shots account and Libby, there were messages between the AS account and Libby prior to and up until February 13, 2017.

In the hearings, VIto testified that he spoke to many in Peru and he never made a connection between the Allen's and the Kline's. He also stated there was no DIGITAL connection.

 

[sunshineray]

That whole issue you're talking about is now OT (my understanding)

In general terms it's not. I agree with statt#1 in finding it very hard to understand a reason why FBI, ISP, Prosecutors would all be in on a conspiracy to blame a man, with no previous record of criminal behaviors, for a double child murder...unless they were certain he was the guilty party. I also think the existence of his vast confessions is evidence of that. AJMO

 

[Salah11]

In general terms it's not. I agree with statt#1 in finding it very hard to understand a reason why FBI, ISP, Prosecutors would all be in on a conspiracy to blame a man, with no previous record of criminal behaviors, for a double child murder...unless they were certain he was the guilty party. I also think the existence of his vast confessions is evidence of that. AJMO

Exactly it would be so much easier to blame a KK for example as he is a predator and nobody would have any sympathy and he is already locked away for similar crimes. IMO

 

[Kittybunny]

Like eating an elephant. One bite at a time.

Look at the discovery. Come up with a strategy to handle a specific piece of evidence in the courtroom. Repeat.

MOO

But Mooooo-oooom, that sounds sooo booooo-riiiiiiing. And so hard, it will take FOREVER!

Can’t we just write Franks VI: Revenge of the Son of Franks? This one is going to be a hit, we can feel it!

 

[Salah11]

Some transcript are now available from the 3 day hearing.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com