Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - #154 *Richard Allen Arrested*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really get very emotionally turned around about the DP...I mean it seems wrong and many countries have abolished it..

but here in this case...looking at BG happily traversing that bridge towards 2 innocent lambs...I can honestly say I would like to see him executed..and might even volunteer to help. I know, I know but this man is demonic, not even human in
my eyes. mOO
 
Y'all. I found some rules. :) But it links right to a PDF. I've got screenshots of the PDF. How do I get a link?

This might work. I found documents stating a special judge can preside over a case in the county filed or judge's court county. It doesn't specify a judge can hold a hearing and not be there. I'll attach the pdf and link is to Indiana trial rules.

 

Attachments

  • 20221104_170849.jpg
    20221104_170849.jpg
    119.1 KB · Views: 15
  • 20221104_170906.jpg
    20221104_170906.jpg
    129.4 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
Y'all. I found some rules. :) But it links right to a PDF. I've got screenshots of the PDF. How do I get a link?
Rule 14. Use of Telephone and Audiovisual Telecommunication

(A) Authority. A trial court may, in its discretion, use telephone or audiovisual telecommunication pursuant to the provisions of this rule as follows:

(1) A trial court may use telephone or audiovisual telecommunication to conduct:

(a) Pre-trial conferences;

(b) Proceedings where only the attorneys are present;

(c) Proceedings during a declared emergency under Ind. Administrative Rule 17; and,

(d) Proceedings where a party or witness is unavailable due to quarantine.

(2) A trial court may use audiovisual telecommunication to conduct:

(a) Initial hearings pursuant to IC 35-33-7-1, 3, 3.5, 4 and 5, including any probable cause hearing pursuant to IC 35-33-7-2; determination of indigence and assignment of counsel pursuant to IC 35-33-7-6; amount and conditions of bail pursuant to IC 35-33-7-5(4), 35-33-8-3.1 and 4; and the setting of omnibus date pursuant to IC 35-36-8-1;

(b) The taking of a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor charge, pursuant to IC 35-35-1-2;

(c) Sentencing hearings pursuant to IC 35-38-1-2 when the defendant has given a written waiver of his or her right to be present in person and the prosecution has consented;

(d) Post-conviction hearings pursuant to Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5), with the written consent of the parties;

(e) Preliminary hearings in mental health emergency detention proceedings pursuant to IC 12-26-5-10;

(f) Review hearings in mental health commitment proceedings pursuant to IC 12-26-15-2;

(g) When a child is alleged to be a delinquent child, for a detention hearing pursuant to IC 31-37-6 or a periodic review hearing pursuant to IC 31-37-20-2;

(h) When a child is alleged to be a child in need of service, for a detention hearing pursuant to IC 31-34-5 or a periodic review hearing pursuant to IC 31-34-21-2.

(B) Other Proceedings. In addition, in any conference, hearing or proceeding not specifically enumerated in Section (A) of this rule, with the exception of criminal proceedings involving the right of confrontation or the right to be present, a trial court may use telephone or audiovisual communications subject to:

(1) the written consent of all the parties, entered on the Chronological Case Summary; or

(2) upon a trial court's finding of good cause, upon its own motion or upon the motion of a party. The following factors shall be considered in determining "good cause":

(a) Whether, after due diligence, the party has been unable to procure the physical presence of the witness;

(b) Whether effective cross-examination of the witness is possible, considering the availability of documents and exhibits to counsel and the witness;

(c) The complexity of the proceedings and the importance of the offered testimony in relation to the convenience to the party and the proposed witness;

(d) The importance of presenting the testimony of the witness in open court, where the fact finder may observe the demeanor of the witness and impress upon the witness the duty to testify truthfully;

(e) Whether undue surprise or unfair prejudice would result; and

(f) Any other factors a trial court may determine to be relevant in an individual case.

(3) A party or a trial court if it is acting on its own motion must give notice of the motion to use telephone or audiovisual telecommunication as follows:

(a) Any motion for testimony to be presented by telephone or audiovisual telecommunication shall be served not less than thirty (30) days before the time specified for hearing of such testimony;

(b) Opposition to a motion for testimony to be presented by telephone or audiovisual telecommunication shall be made by written objection within seven (7) days after service;

(c) A trial court may hold an expedited hearing no later than ten (10) days before the scheduled hearing of such testimony to determine if good cause has been shown to present testimony by telephone or audiovisual telecommunication;

(d) A trial court shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law within its order on the motion for testimony to be presented by telephone or audiovisual telecommunication; and

(e) For cause found, a trial court may alter the time deadlines set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c) upon motion made prior to the expiration of the time for the required action.

(C) Facilities and Equipment. In relation to any hearing or proceeding conducted under this rule, the court shall assure that:

(1) The facility and equipment provide counsel with the ability to confer privately with an out of court party, or with other counsel, off the record, before, during, and immediately following the hearing or proceeding. Mental health care providers, employees of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and its county offices of Family and Children, and county probation officers who appear as witnesses are not parties for the purposes of this section.

(2) When using telephonic and audiovisual telecommunication:

(a) All participants are able to fully view and/or converse with each other simultaneously.

(b) The facilities have the capacity for contemporaneous transmission of documents and exhibits.

(c) Audiovisual images are in color and monitor screens are of sufficient quality, design, and architecture as to allow all parties to observe the demeanor and non-verbal communication of the other parties.

(d) The telephonic or audiovisual transmission is of sufficient quality, design, and architecture to allow easy listening and/or viewing of all public proceedings.

(e) The use of telephonic or audiovisual technology in conducting hearings and proceedings shall in no way abridge any right of the public.

(3) Application may be made to the Indiana Supreme Court, through the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration (IOJA), for approval of a plan that uses alternative procedures and technology that meet the intent and objective of this rule.

(4) The confidentiality accorded to attorney-client communications, and all other privileges applicable under Indiana law, apply.
Indiana Administrative Rules
 
Rule 14. Use of Telephone and Audiovisual Telecommunication

(A) Authority. A trial court may, in its discretion, use telephone or audiovisual telecommunication pursuant to the provisions of this rule as follows:

(1) A trial court may use telephone or audiovisual telecommunication to conduct:

(a) Pre-trial conferences;

(b) Proceedings where only the attorneys are present;

(c) Proceedings during a declared emergency under Ind. Administrative Rule 17; and,

(d) Proceedings where a party or witness is unavailable due to quarantine.

(2) A trial court may use audiovisual telecommunication to conduct:

(a) Initial hearings pursuant to IC 35-33-7-1, 3, 3.5, 4 and 5, including any probable cause hearing pursuant to IC 35-33-7-2; determination of indigence and assignment of counsel pursuant to IC 35-33-7-6; amount and conditions of bail pursuant to IC 35-33-7-5(4), 35-33-8-3.1 and 4; and the setting of omnibus date pursuant to IC 35-36-8-1;

(b) The taking of a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor charge, pursuant to IC 35-35-1-2;

(c) Sentencing hearings pursuant to IC 35-38-1-2 when the defendant has given a written waiver of his or her right to be present in person and the prosecution has consented;

(d) Post-conviction hearings pursuant to Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5), with the written consent of the parties;

(e) Preliminary hearings in mental health emergency detention proceedings pursuant to IC 12-26-5-10;

(f) Review hearings in mental health commitment proceedings pursuant to IC 12-26-15-2;

(g) When a child is alleged to be a delinquent child, for a detention hearing pursuant to IC 31-37-6 or a periodic review hearing pursuant to IC 31-37-20-2;

(h) When a child is alleged to be a child in need of service, for a detention hearing pursuant to IC 31-34-5 or a periodic review hearing pursuant to IC 31-34-21-2.

(B) Other Proceedings. In addition, in any conference, hearing or proceeding not specifically enumerated in Section (A) of this rule, with the exception of criminal proceedings involving the right of confrontation or the right to be present, a trial court may use telephone or audiovisual communications subject to:

(1) the written consent of all the parties, entered on the Chronological Case Summary; or

(2) upon a trial court's finding of good cause, upon its own motion or upon the motion of a party. The following factors shall be considered in determining "good cause":

(a) Whether, after due diligence, the party has been unable to procure the physical presence of the witness;

(b) Whether effective cross-examination of the witness is possible, considering the availability of documents and exhibits to counsel and the witness;

(c) The complexity of the proceedings and the importance of the offered testimony in relation to the convenience to the party and the proposed witness;

(d) The importance of presenting the testimony of the witness in open court, where the fact finder may observe the demeanor of the witness and impress upon the witness the duty to testify truthfully;

(e) Whether undue surprise or unfair prejudice would result; and

(f) Any other factors a trial court may determine to be relevant in an individual case.

(3) A party or a trial court if it is acting on its own motion must give notice of the motion to use telephone or audiovisual telecommunication as follows:

(a) Any motion for testimony to be presented by telephone or audiovisual telecommunication shall be served not less than thirty (30) days before the time specified for hearing of such testimony;

(b) Opposition to a motion for testimony to be presented by telephone or audiovisual telecommunication shall be made by written objection within seven (7) days after service;

(c) A trial court may hold an expedited hearing no later than ten (10) days before the scheduled hearing of such testimony to determine if good cause has been shown to present testimony by telephone or audiovisual telecommunication;

(d) A trial court shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law within its order on the motion for testimony to be presented by telephone or audiovisual telecommunication; and

(e) For cause found, a trial court may alter the time deadlines set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c) upon motion made prior to the expiration of the time for the required action.

(C) Facilities and Equipment. In relation to any hearing or proceeding conducted under this rule, the court shall assure that:

(1) The facility and equipment provide counsel with the ability to confer privately with an out of court party, or with other counsel, off the record, before, during, and immediately following the hearing or proceeding. Mental health care providers, employees of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and its county offices of Family and Children, and county probation officers who appear as witnesses are not parties for the purposes of this section.

(2) When using telephonic and audiovisual telecommunication:

(a) All participants are able to fully view and/or converse with each other simultaneously.

(b) The facilities have the capacity for contemporaneous transmission of documents and exhibits.

(c) Audiovisual images are in color and monitor screens are of sufficient quality, design, and architecture as to allow all parties to observe the demeanor and non-verbal communication of the other parties.

(d) The telephonic or audiovisual transmission is of sufficient quality, design, and architecture to allow easy listening and/or viewing of all public proceedings.

(e) The use of telephonic or audiovisual technology in conducting hearings and proceedings shall in no way abridge any right of the public.

(3) Application may be made to the Indiana Supreme Court, through the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration (IOJA), for approval of a plan that uses alternative procedures and technology that meet the intent and objective of this rule.

(4) The confidentiality accorded to attorney-client communications, and all other privileges applicable under Indiana law, apply.
Indiana Administrative Rules
Did you read what I attached? This says a special judge can attend hearings from a completely different County?
 
The use of video is pretty wide open, as you can see from the link I posted. The judge can decide to hold the hearing via video on her own motion. If I recall correctly, and I don’t have my Trial Rule book to see when changes were actually made, but I think the video rules were relaxed substantially during the pandemic. I saw huge changes about holding hearings and conferences via video. We all thought we’d be “shut down” under the Governor’s Executive Order for a few weeks, and then it kept going. The courts couldn’t sit on their dockets for that long, and I think there was a scramble to write/rewrite the court rules for the use of video.
 
Y'all. I found some rules. :) But it links right to a PDF. I've got screenshots of the PDF. How do I get a link?

This might work. I found documents stating a special judge can preside over a case in the county filed or judge's court county. It doesn't specify a judge can hold a hearing and not be there. I'll attach the pdf and link is to Indiana trial rules.


Great find. Now we have an answer to that question.
 
Did you read what I attached? This says a special judge can attend hearings from a completely different County?
Yup. Judges have quite a bit of leeway here. And we’re a practical bunch for the most part here in Indiana. I suspect they’ll try to schedule hearings and conferences for the ease of everyone involved. Right now, at the early stages, that will probably be video. And we’ll wait to see if there’s a change of venue motion.
 
The use of video is pretty wide open, as you can see from the link I posted. The judge can decide to hold the hearing via video on her own motion. If I recall correctly, and I don’t have my Trial Rule book to see when changes were actually made, but I think the video rules were relaxed substantially during the pandemic. I saw huge changes about holding hearings and conferences via video. We all thought we’d be “shut down” under the Governor’s Executive Order for a few weeks, and then it kept going. The courts couldn’t sit on their dockets for that long, and I think there was a scramble to write/rewrite the court rules for the use of video.


Can a special judge preside over proceedings from a completely different county? My attachments dated July 2022 say no.

JMO
 
Y'all. I found some rules. :) But it links right to a PDF. I've got screenshots of the PDF. How do I get a link?

This might work. I found documents stating a special judge can preside over a case in the county filed or judge's court county. It doesn't specify a judge can hold a hearing and not be there. I'll attach the pdf and link is to Indiana trial rules.

Here’s the link
 
This sounds to me like she can use either location. Quote from the link above.

From time to time, a judge will receive an assignment to preside over a case as a Special Judge. A Special Judge serves as the judge of the court in which the case is pending. Most often the hearing or trial is conducted in the court facility where the case is pending. However, on some occasions, the Special Judge will conduct the hearing or trial in their own court using their own court reporter. When this occurs, the Special Judge and the reporter are acting on behalf of the court in which the case is pending.
 
This sounds to me like she can use either location. Quote from the link above.
I agree. My whole hangup was it doesn't say she can use both at the same time.

I also found it interesting in light of the rules how quickly a special judge was found. Sounds like this might have been in the works for a day or two. JMO
 
Whatever his motive, however it happened, whichever sketch is his, no matter how tall he is, whoever helped him or not, whatever judge presides over his case, in whichever county, and however long the documents stay sealed, I'm just relieved this man is off the streets.
 
<modsnip - quoted post was removed for not including a link to the info posted>


Motion Filed
Request by the Sheriff of Carroll County, Indiana to Transfer Inmate from the Custody of the Sheriff to the Custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping filed.
Filed By:
Carroll County Sheriff's Department
File Stamp:
11/03/2022
11/03/2022Order Issued
Order Re: Sheriff's Request for Safekeeping entered, per form.
Judicial Officer:
Diener, Benjamin A.
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Allen, Richard M.
Noticed:
Carroll County Sheriff's Department
Order Signed:
11/03/2022
I think the sheriff wanted him out of his jurisdiction in case he gets attacked, etc., it won't be in his watch
My biggest fear is that he will pull an Ariel Castro and cheat the families out of justice for their loss. I hope they keep him safe and sound and on 24-hour watch.
This is what I'm afraid of. He's already pled not guilty. I wonder if when he's acquired an attorney and is told it doesn't look good for him, if that will be the point where he decides to take himself out? I just don't see this guy wanting to face life in prison or the DP. He's obviously had no remorse all these years and honestly, I see him as too weak to make it in prison. All MOO.
 
Does anyone know who may have helped with the second killer sketch?
Just wondering if it's possible that Kline helped with that.

Do you mean the "young" bridge guy sketch (that was actually made first but released in 2019), or the "old" bridge guy sketch that was made a few months later but released in 2017?

The "young" sketch was created by a sketch artist with the ISP, Master Trooper Bryant about three days after the murders. He says that it came from a witness: "The picture was based on the description of a person who saw something that the person felt needed to be reported, according to Bryant." Source: Delphi murders: New sketch of killer, video from Libby's phone released

The "old" sketch is also a sketch from the memory of a witness, but one that was made at a later time:
A sketch authorities released Monday of a man considered the main suspect in the February killings of two northern Indiana girls was drawn in part from descriptions provided by someone who saw the suspect around the time the girls were slain, a sheriff said.

Carroll County Sheriff Tobe Leazenby said the witness saw the man walking near Delphi, about 60 miles (100 kilometers) northwest of Indianapolis, but only recently met with an FBI sketch artist to provide facial details for the rendering released by State Police.

Leazenby said he cannot discuss where the witness saw the unidentified man, who authorities consider the main suspect in the slayings of 14-year-old Liberty German and 13-year-old Abigail Williams. He said the witness saw the man around the time the girls were killed.


Source: Witness aided in sketch of suspect in Indiana teens' deaths
 
Exactly. MOO, but I believe it is the fact that trials are open to the scrutiny of the public that ensures LE plays by the rules and doesn't lock up innocent people. When LE starts sealing records and telling people they don't need to know certain facts related to a case, the public should be worried, IMO.

LE has no power to seal records

The Judge decides whether to do it. IMO the public would really only need to start worrying if there was a trend in Judge's sealing proceedings without good grounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
1,707
Total visitors
1,890

Forum statistics

Threads
606,610
Messages
18,207,174
Members
233,908
Latest member
Kat kruck
Back
Top