IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #168

[DeDee]

<SBM>

Would you care to possibly speculate on any wholesome reasons for leaking them? Because I would like to know what those could be. Maybe it will change my mind.

JMO

While we cannot get inside the mind of the disseminator, I can presume they wanted to show, through the CS photos, two things. One is that there's no way that one person could have committed the crimes against Libby and Abby because of many factors; including the time required for moving and posing the precious bodies, redressing one victim, all while leaving the area pristine, then the careful placement of the sticks and logs on and around them, including the freshly cut limbs.

Who knows why ppl become so obssessed with cases that they are willing to interfere with Justice?

 

[girlhasnoname]

It may not be right but nobody‘s come up with a better solution in hundreds of years. Society prefers that most people charged with murder are not freely mingling about. RA‘s in solitary so he’s safe from other prisoners who might be inclined to teach him a lesson. It is what it is.

RA is in solitary with 24/7 surveillance based on his own threats of self harm according to the document dump and his request to transfer back in April.

 

[MistyWaters]

RA is in solitary with 24/7 surveillance based on his own threats of self harm according to the document dump and his request to transfer back in April.

Yes that too.

 

[Emma Peel]

Hennessey argued that the judge should not disqualify AB from the case, didn't he. Would he argue that if she didn't have that power?

Oh, sorry for any misunderstanding.

The Court has the power to sanction/remove/disqualify the attorney that the Court Appointed - and Hennessey's argument anticipates some action. MOO

But (and this is all just my thinking and fully welcome other thoughts and comments from others who know the protocols here) ...

I would think that the Court would not make that disqualification without conducting a hearing for the record and rendering a written decision. JMO.

 

[Emma Peel]

While we cannot get inside the mind of the disseminator, I can presume they wanted to show, through the CS photos, two things. One is that there's no way that one person could have committed the crimes against Libby and Abby because of many factors; including the time required for moving and posing the precious bodies, redressing one victim, all while leaving the area pristine, then the careful placement of the sticks and logs on and around them, including the freshly cut limbs.

Who knows why ppl become so obssessed with cases that they are willing to interfere with Justice?

IMO - it's very puzzling, especially b/c here we have someone who was employed at the Baldwin office ... who ... one would think ... would absolutely have known better than to interfere. Smacks of desperation.

 

[girlhasnoname]

That's what I'm thinking. He's lost a lot of weight, is apparently refusing to eat and sometimes to drink, is doing other odd things.

I should also mention that some inmates and prisoners prefer being alone in a cell (Charles Manson did, although he gradually became a little more social as he put in his decades of penitentiary life - apparently).

But I'm guessing that RA needs special protection in prison and is also causing concerns on the medical front.

IMO

@10ofRods RA made self harm claims when he was brought in. moo

 

[FrostedGlass]

Oh, sorry for any misunderstanding.

The Court has the power to sanction/remove/disqualify the attorney that the Court Appointed - and Hennessey's argument anticipates some action. MOO

But (and this is all just my thinking and fully welcome other thoughts and comments from others who know the protocols here) ...

I would think that the Court would not make that disqualification without conducting a hearing for the record and rendering a written decision. JMO.

Thanks; it's over my head and I'm having a problem defining what I'm looking for.
Here is an example except I'd like one for Indiana unless this applies to all courts.

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[DeDee]

When the new defense is appointed I’ve noticed many in the media speculating it will be much more low key and less dramatic. I‘d think that would be very much welcomed by everyone directly involved including the families of the victims.

A less dramatic defense is not predicated on how the families may feel. It should be about seeking justice thru truth.

Something I wonder about, we know that Baldwin‘s attorney submitted that brief pleading his case to the court at about 10am. The key parties met with the Judge in her chambers before the hearing was to commence at 2pm and so everyone naturally assumes the reason both the attorneys withdrew was also because of the leak and possible sanctions.

Yes, I agree, if the key players are JG, B&R. AB could be seen in the hallway walking by as the Judge's door is opened and Rozzi dashed into the courtroom to remove Ms Allen right before the Judge entered. Those three, JG, B&R, were together.

But WHAT IF it was about another matter that came to the attention of the court prior to the hearing that was entirely unconnected to the leak? If that were so, the ex-D would probably prefer the public to think they withdrew over the leak. JMO

Ok. The Judge met with B&R alone and received an oral withdrawal from AB. But, why? Uh, oh.

My fear is that something else is about to drop and maybe that's why the D Team left.

 

[girlhasnoname]

You missed JMO.

We have learned nothing until a full and proper investigation has been completed.

Until then then people will speculate within the realms of their own perspective.

The Judge had enough evidence presented to her to make a very serious decision. I'm going to say that there's legitimate proof showing wrong doing by the Defense. She's no fool.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

Thanks; it's over my head and I'm having a problem defining what I'm looking for.
Here is an example except I'd like one for Indiana unless this applies to all courts.

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

www.law.cornell.edu

We can be assured attorneys certainly know what rules they must abide by.

What‘s a pure mystery to me is Hennessy‘s brief. As the leak occurred a full week prior to the hearing, Baldwin would’ve had time to think things through and maybe even reach out to his trusted friend. Obviously his decision was to fight disqualification.

Then kaboom, a major turn of events occurred in the judge’s chambers. Not only him but both attorneys withdrew even before the hearing began, therefore disqualification was no longer an issue.

Defense files memorandum addressing leaked evidence ahead of Delphi murders hearing

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — Just hours before the anticipated hearing in the Delphi murder case, the defendant, Richard Allen filed several motions after evidence was reportedly leaked to social m…

fox59.com

“…..The memorandum had the most information of the several filings ahead of the hearing. The defense claimed that any issues or concerns regarding the representation of Allen should be focused on the “6th Amendment” and the “rights of the accused.”

Defense attorneys claimed that because Allen had developed a strong and trusting bond with Mr. Baldwin, disqualification of either of his court-appointed attorneys would greatly prejudice his “right to counsel and a timely trial.”

They referenced a 1994 appeals case that involved an accused’s right to counsel of choice. The authority to remove appointed counsel is limited and has resulted in reversals in other jurisdictions, according to the filing.

The court order stated disqualification of counsel is an extreme remedy for any “alleged or perceived violation” of a court’s order.

Many of the cases concerning disqualification of counsel involved conflicts of interest, according to the attorneys…..”

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm sorry - trying to follow - quick question ... which ruling of the Judge are your referencing? The one accepting withdrawal?

Baldwin through his attorney was trying NOT to withdraw. She ruled against it and now they're both gone.

Good riddance, they would have tanked this cause on appellate issues IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Hennessey argued that the judge should not disqualify AB from the case, didn't he. Would he argue that if she didn't have that power?

No

 

[girlhasnoname]

IMO - it's very puzzling, especially b/c here we have someone who was employed at the Baldwin office ... who ... one would think ... would absolutely have known better than to interfere. Smacks of desperation.

Agreed, by the Defense IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Oh, sorry for any misunderstanding.

The Court has the power to sanction/remove/disqualify the attorney that the Court Appointed - and Hennessey's argument anticipates some action. MOO

But (and this is all just my thinking and fully welcome other thoughts and comments from others who know the protocols here) ...

I would think that the Court would not make that disqualification without conducting a hearing for the record and rendering a written decision. JMO.

They were in a hearing from 10 am until almost 2 pm. I'm sure there was a record and it will be noted in this Case file, this was a huge and rare decision by the Court. Whether we will see it or if it remains under seal is yet to be known.

JMO

 

[zh0r4]

Thanks. I'd never seen all the pages.

I don't believe this was just an another innocent 'oooopsie' by the Defense by a mile. Obviously the Judge didn't either. Their unprofessional conduct from Day 1 has made a mockery of any Defendants right to fair and vigorous representation. They've hurt the process, not helped Defense Attorneys in any way IMO.

I'm glad they got the boot, hopefully their replacements will conduct themselves according the requirements of the Court so the family doesn't keep having to suffer needless time delays again. I honestly think that will happen with new representation knowing this Judge is not going to abide misconduct.

JMO

Here are all 5 pages.

 

[MistyWaters]

A less dramatic defense is not predicated on how the families may feel. It should be about seeking justice thru truth.

Yes, I agree, if the key players are JG, B&R. AB could be seen in the hallway walking by as the Judge's door is opened and Rozzi dashed into the courtroom to remove Ms Allen right before the Judge entered. Those three, JG, B&R, were together.

Ok. The Judge met with B&R alone and received an oral withdrawal from AB. But, why? Uh, oh.

My fear is that something else is about to drop and maybe that's why the D Team left.

Very seldom when this case has been in the headlines recently is it on a path toward achieving justice and truth for the families. It must be exhausting for them.

Your fear could well prove true ….. jumped ship.

 

[Emma Peel]

Thanks; it's over my head and I'm having a problem defining what I'm looking for.
Here is an example except I'd like one for Indiana unless this applies to all courts.

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

www.law.cornell.edu

I may not understand you question but ... if the Court hired the public defender, the court can remove/replace them (for cause). Local rules apply; you'd be correct that you'd want to see the Indiana rules on this to be sure of everything. I'm only speaking generally here:

To my understanding ... there's likely a prescribed process (or several options) for Court's removal of the counsel the Court has previously assigned; the process would likely involve a formal hearing.

THIS Court had set-up some type of hearing on the LEAK for Wednesday last.

Don't know if it was originally intended to be a removal hearing ... but it may have become apparent that removal was one likely outcome of the hearing ... which Baldwin may have first realized while in chambers? Thus the Baldwin withdrawal?

 

[Emma Peel]

They were in a hearing from 10 am until almost 2 pm. I'm sure there was a record and it will be noted in this Case file, this was a huge and rare decision by the Court. Whether we will see it or if it remains under seal is yet to be known.

JMO

Interesting. This is the first I've heard there was a formal hearing-in-chambers at 10 AM.
I understand parties went into chambers.

I thought the hearing was scheduled for 2 - and the LEAK was on the schedule?

The Court stated to the gallery the hearing was cancelled b/c Defense had withdrawn.
(Leaving all to surmise that that hearing did not happen due to the discussions in chambers.)

But it could have gone the other way - the Court can hear a procedural hearing in chambers if they feel the confidentiality is warranted to avoid open court.

IF that was all confirmed by now, I have missed that news. JMHO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I may not understand you question but ... if the Court hired the public defender, the court can remove/replace them (for cause). Local rules apply; you'd be correct that you'd want to see the Indiana rules on this to be sure of everything. I'm only speaking generally here:

To my understanding ... there's likely a prescribed process (or several options) for Court's removal of the counsel the Court has previously assigned; the process would likely involve a formal hearing.

THIS Court had set-up some type of hearing on the LEAK for Wednesday last.

Don't know if it was originally intended to be a removal hearing ... but it may have become apparent that removal was one likely outcome of the hearing ... which Baldwin may have first realized while in chambers? Thus the Baldwin withdrawal?

Thank you; yes that's what I want to see. I'll keep looking.

Did H seem to be prepared to argue for B to stay on the case at that hearing? The D asked for cameras in the courtroom so I'm assuming they weren't opposed to arguing in open court. Is this a wrong assumption?

 

[Emma Peel]

Agreed, by the Defense IMO

Alrighty.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Defense made the decision to leak.

I'm saying some former-employee-weirdo was emotionally impaired (desperate), and along with those lower down the leak chain - that took that leak and with very little thought beyond validating their own feelings ... and they ran with it. JMHO