Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #162

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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
FrostedGlass said:
"The request shall demonstrate that" = I take that to mean: We need to see in writing, in this document, exactly why or how it will harm, etc. I personally thought it would list the actual reasons why and wondered why we weren't hearing from MSM.

Shay H's opinion on his Twitter (he has some issues that I haven't read yet):
"Worth noting that Rule 6 is to be applied in extraordinary circumstances. There is a presumption of public access. Thus, there must be compelling evidence to overcome presumption. As stated, the State provided a conclusory argument."
Click to expand...
Very odd. Right after RA's arrest, his lawyers stated something about some of McL's filings not being done correctly, or something to that effect. It's worrisome.
 
FrostedGlass said:
I wasn't quite clear as to what the problem was with the Request according to Hoosier Public Defender until I read Rule 6. Disclaimer: It's possible that I'm misunderstanding.

Now my question is: "Why did Judge Gull agree to it?"

Here is the relative section; it appears that NMcL just re-worded it and failed to demonstrate the why or how to items 1-3:

Rule 6: Excluding Other Court Records From Public Access.​

(A) In extraordinary circumstances, a Court Record that otherwise would be publicly accessible may be excluded from Public Access by a Court having jurisdiction over the record. A verified written request to prohibit Public Access to a Court Record may be made by any person affected by the release of the Court Record. The request shall demonstrate that:

(1) The public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access;
(2) Access or dissemination of the Court Record will create a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons or the general public; or
(3) A substantial prejudicial effect to on-going proceedings cannot be avoided without prohibiting Public Access.

Bringing forward NMcL's request:
1. That the public interest will be secured by the sealing of the record;
2. That dissemination of the information contained in the record will create serious and imminent danger to the public interest;
3. That any prejudicial effect created by dissemination of the information cannot be avoided by any reasonable method other than sealing of the record;
4. That there is substantial probability that sealing of the record will be effective in protecting the public interest against the perceived danger;
5. That the public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access for the reason that the release of the information might damage an ongoing murder investigation; or;
6. That access or dissemination of the Court Record will create significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general public.
Click to expand...

IMO: Asserting that sealing the record is necessary to protect the accused ( i.e. "the requestor, other persons, general public" = the accused as well) ... to ensure fair trial ... limit risk to accused of physical harm via vigilante behavior, prison violence, etc.

Prosecution here asserts to influence court decision re: public access to the record. They can assert any opinion on the topic. That doesn't mean the record actually has the level of inflammatory content that the prosecution claims it has; the court will assess and determine.

(noodling further: Regardless, it seems prosecution feels that keeping record sealed at this time benefits prosecution and/or that public sharing of the record is disadvantageous to prosecution. Defense disagrees. Defense prefers the record be public. What does it say about the record if the Defense supports record to go public while Prosecution pushes for seal?)
 
Last edited:
Here are a couple points of interest in the complaint:
drive.google.com

22-FC-157.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
On October 28, 2022, Ron Wilkins (Complainant), a reporter for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, submitted a public
records request (both written and telephonically) to ISP for information regarding the arrest of a suspect in a murder
case in Carroll County. The arrest occurred on October 26, 2022. Wilkins was seeking information mandated to be disclosed pursuant to Indiana code section 5-14-3-5. His request was denied on October 29.

ISP confirmed that Wilkins was denied the information until October 31, 2022 when ISP held a press conference and issued a press release. ISP argues it was “under the direction” of the county prosecutor and that any court records were sealed.

ISP also cites the local prosecutor and presiding judge as factors in the delay. While that matter is being addressed in other opinions, it is notable that APRA’s daily log requirement for law enforcement is not a judicial record.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is the opinion of this office that
the daily log information required by the Access to Public
Records Act should have been made available on demand no
later than 24 hours after the suspect’s arrest.
 
Schatz said:
Heya. Would love to hear one of our verified legal expert’s interpretation of the specific point “That dissemination of the information contained in the record will create serious and imminent danger to the public interest;”

fox59.com

Motion reveals prosecutor’s reasons for sealing court documents in Delphi murder case

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. – We now have some additional insight into the reasons Carroll County’s prosecutor asked a judge to seal records in the Delphi murder case. Among other things, Carroll County P…
fox59.com fox59.com
Click to expand...
IMO, as my comment above ... Prosecution raises all concerns necessary to - in line with the rules for sealing records - to keep records sealed when Prosecution prefers the records be sealed. In argument they can exaggerate "danger".

Court will either agree or disagree that these Prosecution-raised concerns are reasonable, exist, genuine, etc.

Begs the question: Why would Prosecution prefer that this record be sealed? They must feel that's advantageous/preferable for their case at this time ... but ... WHY?

Or has the case had so much publicity already that Prosecution believes even redacted witness names in the publicized record would be in danger b/c those witnesses are readily identified. Would those witnesses likely need protection from other potential suspects not yet in custody?

Or is a larger group defined within the record - a group that Prosecution states they are still investigation?
 
Last edited:
Nick McLeland is busy asking Delphi council to pay him an extra $5k on top of his $85/hr salary. This is a fact--video to back it up. I think this guy's heart and mind are in the wrong place. Not the time to ask for a higher salary...I just hope he can actually deliver, if RA is guilty
 
Trebor5591 said:
In my opinion, "protecting the public interest" is a smokescreen for protecting the reputation of LE due to the many mistakes that would be apparent if the documents were made public. Just self-serving suppression of information by a county-level government official. MOO
Click to expand...
MOO Could be, but protection of witnesses is also of paramount importance. The DA/Police have said they believe there are accomplices or actors/killers out there.
Witnesses may have already unknowingly interacted with RA while getting their prescriptions as apparently CVS is the only pharmacy in Delphi.
So if there may be others out there, and many people
believe there are, I definitely support a gag order till the trial.
 
Last edited:
Jay78 said:
Nick McLeland is busy asking Delphi council to pay him an extra $5k on top of his $85/hr salary. This is a fact--video to back it up. I think this guy's heart and mind are in the wrong place. Not the time to ask for a higher salary...I just hope he can actually deliver, if RA is guilty
Click to expand...
Delphi is a small town with a big crime. 85 is not all in line with hourly rate for lawyers. For instance the hourly rate is 180-400 in Idaho, the the Moscow Public Defender’s office charges 200 an hour for the capital case certified defense lawyers time, though MOO doubtful that is what the PD herself gets.

I definitely think he needs the help he asked for.
 
Boxer said:
Delphi is a small town with a big crime. 85 is not all in line with hourly rate for lawyers. For instance the hourly rate is 180-400 in Idaho, the the Moscow Public Defender’s office charges 200 an hour for the capital case certified defense lawyers time, though MOO doubtful that is what the PD herself gets.

I definitely think he needs the help he asked for.
Click to expand...


I get that he is underpaid as far as lawyers go. I just thought the timing is terrible. He says they are treading water and struggling, but takes the time to present in person at least two times about needing the $5k. As I have said, if he convicts this guy, he can literally ask for the world after. There are distressing signs here that many are seeing. I hope justice is still coming.
 
FrostedGlass said:
5. That the public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access for the reason that the release of the information might damage an ongoing murder investigation; or;
6. That access or dissemination of the Court Record will create significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general public.
Click to expand...
Could it mean in reverse, that whoever is able despite the sealing to learn of the content of the sealed documents is "their" man, namely the person, who participated in the murders (or is the real killer)??
 
Emma Peel said:
IMO, as my comment above ... Prosecution raises all concerns necessary to - in line with the rules for sealing records - to keep records sealed when Prosecution prefers the records be sealed. In argument they can exaggerate "danger".

Court will either agree or disagree that these Prosecution-raised concerns are reasonable, exist, genuine, etc.

Begs the question: Why would Prosecution prefer that this record be sealed? They must feel that's advantageous/preferable for their case at this time ... but ... WHY?

Or has the case had so much publicity already that Prosecution believes even redacted witness names in the publicized record would be in danger b/c those witnesses are readily identified. Would those witnesses likely need protection from other potential suspects not yet in custody?

Or is a larger group defined within the record - a group that Prosecution states they are still investigation?
Click to expand...
i think you might be overthinking this
in my opinion it was a very messed up investigation and the arrest was sudden and they were not prepared for this outcome and they wanted to keep it under wraps for as long as possible
 
Tried to review some LE-provided information regarding the crime scene w/o speculation.
What do we know from LE reports/statements to public or to the press, and to what degree of detail? Made myself a list of LE-sourced information (I think - feel free to correct), but I may not have the degree of detail that LE provided on said information. (A lot to review/catch up/distill; it's a long case record.) Sharing what I think are LE-info shared w/ public highlights here - fellow WS folks here are welcome to fix it.

a) bodies moved after death (any LE details re: distance between discovered bodies vs murder site)
b) crime scene "staged" (any LE details as to particulars of the "staging"? "staged" can mean a few things. DId LE specify details: Is staged here = "posed" ? Or is staged = moved in effort to conceal.)
c) trophies were taken (LE specified if taken from crime scene? Clothing v hair v photos v other)
d) ejected bullet at crime scene 2 ft from discovered bodies.
e) evidence exists from crime scene in form of non-victim DNA (is this DNA evidence partial?)
f) evidence from crime scene of non-victim fibers (do fibers match RA search product & BG video?)
g) statement that some of victims' clothing missing vs. clothing recovered @ crime scene (any specifics?).
h) disclosure that some of victim's clothing found in creek vs w/ bodies. (any specifics?)
i) evidence suggests absence of sexual assault/rape of victims
j) BG video evidence on victim's phone
k) Witness evidence: Other hiker/walkers on trail describe passing man matching BG-video figure on man on trail; Driver on 300 witnesses side of road - muddy & bloody clothing on roadside pedestrian. All witness timelines line up.
l) Vehicle witness(es) describe dark car parked reversed-in @ former CPS bldg. Timeline match.
m) RA's 2016 Ford Focus owned at time of crime and "similar" to witness description above.
n) 2016 interview w/ RA - RA confirms he parked his vehicle at the location of CPS building.
o) digital evidence as to pedophilia catfishing social media HAD engaged w/ one of the victims and HAD arranged a meetup at the park location that day/time, etc (although, no LE specifics linking this digital/social media activity, or that social media group to RA?)
p) 2022 interview(s) w/ RA about AFTER LE revisited RA 2016 interview & crime scene bullet matched a gun RA owned. (any specifics comparing consistency of the 2016 and 2022 interviews?)
q) confirmation that cause of death and bloody crime scene was likely from attacks with sharp blade instrument
r) 2022 interview RA describes what he wore for his 2017 hike. In 2022, he describes himself dressed as BG video subject is dressed.
s) RA wife says RA still owns blue Carhart jacket (from PCA - but is it same jacket RA had in 2017?)
t) LE witness reports (RA) walking down 300 with CLOTHES that were "muddy and bloody".
u) No LE witness reports seeing RA returning from walk using trail.
v) knives taken from RA home upon search
w) bullet forensics - is "crucial" evidence (per court docs)

- What crime scene info above was released to public as part of LE plea to public for more leads?

- Has LE addressed/confirmed (victim's Family assertion) RA personally helped family at CVS with victim photos after the fact? (Could "trophy" include RA keeping copy of these family photos?)

- As part of investigation, has LE located the 2016 Ford Focus? Any LE mention of vehicle forensics (LE running forensic testing on RA's 2016 Ford Focus)?

- Any LE mention of clothing forensics on RA clothing recovered at RA home?

- Has LE disclosed results of RA's residence/property search other than what was described in the redacted probable cause affidavit?

- Has LE publicly confirmed death by knife wounds?

-
 
Last edited:
sandy_80 said:
i think you might be overthinking this
in my opinion it was a very messed up investigation and the arrest was sudden and they were not prepared for this outcome and they wanted to keep it under wraps for as long as possible
Click to expand...
Not gonna disagree ... it could be as simple as that - could just be tired of inflammatory/bad press and want critics quashed until ... trial.
 
Emma Peel said:
Tried to review some LE-provided information regarding the crime scene w/o speculation.
What do we know from LE reports/statements to public or to the press, and to what degree of detail? Made myself a list of LE-sourced information (I think - feel free to correct), but I may not have the degree of detail that LE provided on said information. (A lot to review/catch up/distill; it's a long case record.) Sharing what I think are LE-info shared w/ public highlights here - fellow WS folks here are welcome to fix it.

a) bodies moved after death (any LE details re: distance between discovered bodies vs murder site)
b) crime scene "staged" (any LE details as to particulars of the "staging"? "staged" can mean a few things. DId LE specify details: Is staged here = "posed" ? Or is staged = moved in effort to conceal.)
c) trophies were taken (LE specified if taken from crime scene? Clothing v hair v photos v other)
d) ejected bullet at crime scene 2 ft from discovered bodies.
e) evidence exists from crime scene in form of non-victim DNA (is this DNA evidence partial?)
f) evidence from crime scene of non-victim fibers (do fibers match RA search product & BG video?)
g) statement that some of victims' clothing missing vs. clothing recovered @ crime scene (any specifics?).
h) disclosure that some of victim's clothing found in creek vs w/ bodies. (any specifics?)
i) evidence suggests absence of sexual assault/rape of victims
j) BG video evidence on victim's phone
k) Witness evidence: Other hiker/walkers on trail describe passing man matching BG-video figure on man on trail; Driver on 300 witnesses side of road - muddy & bloody clothing on roadside pedestrian. All witness timelines line up.
l) Vehicle witness(es) describe dark car parked reversed-in @ former CPS bldg. Timeline match.
m) RA's 2016 Ford Focus owned at time of crime and "similar" to witness description above.
n) 2016 interview w/ RA - RA confirms he parked his vehicle at the location of CPS building.
o) digital evidence as to pedophilia catfishing social media HAD engaged w/ one of the victims and HAD arranged a meetup at the park location that day/time, etc (although, no LE specifics linking this digital/social media activity, or that social media group to RA?)
p) 2022 interview(s) w/ RA about AFTER LE revisited RA 2016 interview & crime scene bullet matched a gun RA owned. (any specifics comparing consistency of the 2016 and 2022 interviews?)
q) confirmation that cause of death and bloody crime scene was likely from attacks with sharp blade instrument
r) 2022 interview RA describes what he wore for his 2017 hike. In 2022, he describes himself dressed as BG video subject is dressed.
s) RA wife says RA still owns blue Carhart jacket (from PCA - but is it same jacket RA had in 2017?)
t) LE witness reports (RA) walking down 300 with CLOTHES that were "muddy and bloody".
u) No LE witness reports seeing RA returning from walk using trail.
v) knives taken from RA home upon search
w) bullet forensics - is "crucial" evidence (per court docs)

- What crime scene info above was released to public as part of LE plea to public for more leads?

- Has LE addressed/confirmed (victim's Family assertion) RA personally helped family at CVS with victim photos after the fact? (Could "trophy" include RA keeping copy of these family photos?)

- As part of investigation, has LE located the 2016 Ford Focus? Any LE mention of vehicle forensics (LE running forensic testing on RA's 2016 Ford Focus)?

- Any LE mention of clothing forensics on RA clothing recovered at RA home?

- Has LE disclosed results of RA's residence/property search other than what was described in the redacted probable cause affidavit?

- Has LE publicly confirmed death by knife wounds?

-
Click to expand...

Almost none of what you're hoping LE gave further specifics on (your questions in italics for example) has been released. For instance, we have no idea yet exactly what was meant by staged, we don't know how far their bodies were moved, LE has not publicly confirmed the exact weapon that killed them, nothing has been released regarding what forensics yielded from the search of home/vehicle etc.

LE didn't release any crime scene info as part of a public call for tips. They asked the public to focus on the clip of his voice, the images of him on the bridge, and, I guess, the second sketch. At one point they also asked about the driver of a vehicle parked at the CPS building. At no point did they say anything like "call us if you know someone who owns this certain type of gun/knife/shoe" or "these items were missing from the scene, call us if you have info." They kept all of that secret.

Speaking of which, I'm not sure your point i. In the list above is correct, because you're trying to make a list of LE-sourced info, right? Some family members have stated their beliefs about no rape or sexual assault but I don't believe LE have confirmed anything one way or another.

I think it's possible that RA still owned the Ford Focus at the time of the search warrant. When reporter Barbara MacDonald was in HLN covering the search, they showed a small dark SUV being towed from his home.

With regard to RA helping the victims' family with photos for their memorial service -- if he kept copies of the photos, they certainly would be "trophies" but the trophies that we know LE were looking for are mentioned in the search warrant for Ron Logan's property. So I don't think LE would have been looking for Logan to have copies of images that RA had access to...unless this whole thing is even more twisted than we know. My personal belief is that the trophies mentioned in that search warrant were articles of clothing.
 
Yemelyan said:
Almost none of what you're hoping LE gave further specifics on (your questions in italics for example) has been released. For instance, we have no idea yet exactly what was meant by staged, we don't know how far their bodies were moved, LE has not publicly confirmed the exact weapon that killed them, nothing has been released regarding what forensics yielded from the search of home/vehicle etc.

LE didn't release any crime scene info as part of a public call for tips. They asked the public to focus on the clip of his voice, the images of him on the bridge, and, I guess, the second sketch. At one point they also asked about the driver of a vehicle parked at the CPS building. At no point did they say anything like "call us if you know someone who owns this certain type of gun/knife/shoe" or "these items were missing from the scene, call us if you have info." They kept all of that secret.

Speaking of which, I'm not sure your point i. In the list above is correct, because you're trying to make a list of LE-sourced info, right? Some family members have stated their beliefs about no rape or sexual assault but I don't believe LE have confirmed anything one way or another.

I think it's possible that RA still owned the Ford Focus at the time of the search warrant. When reporter Barbara MacDonald was in HLN covering the search, they showed a small dark SUV being towed from his home.

With regard to RA helping the victims' family with photos for their memorial service -- if he kept copies of the photos, they certainly would be "trophies" but the trophies that we know LE were looking for are mentioned in the search warrant for Ron Logan's property. So I don't think LE would have been looking for Logan to have copies of images that RA had access to...unless this whole thing is even more twisted than we know. My personal belief is that the trophies mentioned in that search warrant were articles of clothing.
Click to expand...

Awesome!

Much appreciation for your time looking over & commenting on that list - so helpful!
And yes, I was basically wondering (hoping?) there was a bit more specific info LE had shared that I'd missed over time on the listed items. Or even if there were more relevant items.

Appreciate the clarification on what's been addressed by LE as to point (i) in my post. Surely potential DNA forensics were gathered early on ... and I've seen no reference that suggests definitive (non-victim) DNA was recovered.

Folks who've followed twists and wrong turns for years on this case ... I sure folks following this case through the years did it with a generous amount of head-banging!

Thank you again!
 
Emma Peel said:
Awesome!

Much appreciation for your time looking over & commenting on that list - so helpful!
And yes, I was basically wondering (hoping?) there was a bit more specific info LE had shared that I'd missed over time on the listed items. Or even if there were more relevant items.

Appreciate the clarification on what's been addressed by LE as to point (i) in my post. Surely potential DNA forensics were gathered early on ... and I've seen no reference that suggests definitive (non-victim) DNA was recovered.

Folks who've followed twists and wrong turns for years on this case ... I sure folks following this case through the years did it with a generous amount of head-banging!

Thank you again!
Click to expand...

With regard to non-victim DNA, in the first couple of years after the murders LE were very coy about what they might have. They would say things like "every crime scene has DNA..." In subsequent years, family of the victims made some comments that they had been told there was DNA to work with. In the HLN special last year, Leazenby told reporter Barbara MacDonald that they have non-victim DNA from the crime scene but they aren't sure if it's the murderer's DNA. No indication if this is a partial or full profile. He said they also have something suggestive of a fingerprint, but again, aren't sure if it's the murderer's.

Just my opinion, but a lack of offender DNA does not necessarily mean that the crime wasn't sexually motivated or that a sexual assault wasn't attempted or even that a sexual assault did not occur, depending on how you define it. I want to be respectful to the victims and not get into specifics, but there's probably a reason their clothes were in the water and some articles of clothing are missing. Not every killer who gets a sexual thrill from killing is going to complete a "traditional" sex act at the scene.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 1,613 (members: 76, guests: 1,537)

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
1,537
Total visitors
1,613
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,791
Messages
18,211,218
Members
233,964
Latest member
tammyb1025
Back
Top