What if he confessed/incriminating statements to one or more people before he was arrested? Now THAT would be some blockbuster evidence, IMO. Can't wait for trial!!
I could see that happening, especially if RA was well under the influence of alcohol at the time. Just an observation.
All it takes is one looking for their 5 minutes of fame on a live national broadcast, in the presence of the jury, for a mistrial...more money and time down the drain. I would put nothing past the defense and their actors. JMO
If it was a fauxpas to put RA in prison instead of jail, why did authorities decide for it in a big double murder case, which shocked the whole nation??
I’m not sure how not live-streaming prevents possible courtroom outbursts that the jury would see anyway. Live-streaming happens in high profile cases all the time, even controversial ones like this one. I’ve never seen a mistrial because of it. JMO but I doubt that’s the reason she isn’t allowing it. If RA is convicted this case will be in appeals for years so that’s a bigger cost worry I think. In my opinion.
The courtroom is already set up with the required equipment (as you linked above) and there have been thousands of cases that have been live streamed through Covid and we continue to see them being streamed every single day, without any error. There is no logical reason why this cannot be live streamed, even audio-only like Lori Vallow.
And why was it done so quickly.. before the defendant could even be appointed counsel?
www.independent.co.uk
I think walking with a purpose could also possibly mean someone walking while being upset and/or angry. Someone posted here that RA frequented these trails. Was he angry about something that day? Feeling neglected? This was the Day before Valentine's day. That may have nothing to do with anything but it possibly could.
Defendant Allen refused his right to a Court Appointed PD during his arraignment and said he was going to hire his own attorney. That is why he didn't have representation.And why was it done so quickly.. before the defendant could even be appointed counsel?
Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen pens jailhouse letter saying wife is in hiding
This week, a judge agreed to push back trial of man behind a catfishing account tied to the murders because he is ‘negotiating’
Just my opinion, but I believe it was a crime of opportunity with the possibility of premeditation by the perp without having selected his victim(s) just yet.
In Indiana, the Judge has the right to have a trial televised or not. Judge Gull agreed to have a hearing televised and her orders about filming were not followed.
They should have waited until he could retain representation before holding a hearing where he is placed under a safekeeping order that somehow created a lawless zone where basic human rights would no longer apply to him and have him shipped off to a solitary confinement section of a maximum security prison. Did he have any idea that would be the outcome of this hearing? I'm approaching at this from the angle that the defendant should be seen as innocent until proven guilty in the court of law and should not be punished and imprisoned prior to an actual conviction.
Another good question!And why was it done so quickly.. before the defendant could even be appointed counsel?
Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen pens jailhouse letter saying wife is in hiding
This week, a judge agreed to push back trial of man behind a catfishing account tied to the murders because he is ‘negotiating’
Since he had assets, it would be expected of him to hire an attorney if he was able. Even with being transferred from place to place in the first few days after arrest, he sought out advice in a timely and asked for a public defender well within the days Indiana gives to seek council.
What did the camera operators do in that October hearing that went against her orders?
I wonder if he’d had counsel what would have happened? Would the shipping off to prison and solitary been thwarted because he had someone to speak for his rights? We will never know. I hope it doesn’t happen to any other presumed innocent person.
The public wont have access to any transcript or audio recording of the trial. This is supposed to be a public trial. Even the taxpayers who are footing the inflated bill won't be allowed to bear witness to the trial that they are paying for.