IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

[Emma Peel]

The prosecutor said early on in a courtroom, on the record, that most of the documents should remain sealed because there may be others involved. That doesn't mean he was talking about the 5 men accused by the defense in the Franks memo. He could well have meant others discussed here or one or two that haven't come to the light of media...MM or social. AJMO

Agree; the P could be referring to anyone ...

IMO, the critical thing (to my thinking) is that the P has publicly left this possibility open.
I think folks tend to overlook this.

Why would P keep the "RA/BG didn't act alone" door open if they're certain they have their man?

It's necessary (if not strategic) on the P's part, to keep that door open for another participant in this complex double murder. Why is it necessary? Let's work through that for a minute.

Fact: the P is keeping the door open for another participant.

Potential reasons:

1) Timeline. Because the P is well aware that the P's proposed timeline for these murders vs their evidence-linked timeline for RA ... leaves reasonable doubt ... that would be mitigated if the P's theory is that there is another participant (and RA won't rat on them).
(The RA timeline is too tight given the geography traveled, two victims, more than one crime scene(s) and the elaborate staging.)

2) Evidence (yet undisclosed). Does evidence suggest another (unknown) male at the scene?

3. Both 1 and 2 above.

The P theory of the case is one worthy of closer examination.
How does this potential other suspect a party to the crime; what's P's theory on this?
Apparently, it's not one that considers an Odin-mimicking staging theory.

Any guesses?

JHMO

 

[MistyWaters]

I’m still unclear how they can forbid him counsel of his choice that has offered to work pro bono?

It’s not about money, RA is not paying for his defense regardless. As he’s claimed he can’t afford it, the onus is on the court to provide him with the best defense possible and so the issue, aside from their apparent earlier withdrawal from the case, is that the Judge believes the ex-D has been grossly negligent in their representation of him.

If RA is convicted it would be a waste of a trial because later he could likely turn around and use that same rational to file an appeal based on incompetent representation. So why wouldn’t he want his ex-D, pro bono or not? It would benefit him much like a free get out of jail card.

JMO

 

[duckcat]

Agree; the P could be referring to anyone ...

IMO, the critical thing (to my thinking) is that the P has publicly left this possibility open.
I think folks tend to overlook this.

Why would P keep the "RA/BG didn't act alone" door open if they're certain they have their man?

It's necessary (if not strategic) on the P's part, to keep that door open for another participant in this complex double murder. Why is it necessary? Let's work through that for a minute.

Fact: the P is keeping the door open for another participant.

Potential reasons:

1) Timeline. Because the P is well aware that the P's proposed timeline for these murders vs their evidence-linked timeline for RA ... leaves reasonable doubt ... that would be mitigated if the P's theory is that there is another participant (and RA won't rat on them).
(The RA timeline is too tight given the geography traveled, two victims, more than one crime scene(s) and the elaborate staging.)

2) Evidence (yet undisclosed). Does evidence suggest another (unknown) male at the scene?

3. Both 1 and 2 above.

The P theory of the case is one worthy of closer examination.
How does this potential other suspect a party to the crime; what's P's theory on this?
Apparently, it's not one that considers an Odin-mimicking staging theory.

Any guesses?

JHMO

I suspect KK is still very much a part of the prosecution’s case. His arrest in 2019 coincides with “change of direction in investigation,” KK interview in Aug 2022 at GAFB showing up in RA’s discovery index, 5 charges are dropped against KK +/- a few days within RA’s arrest, KK pleads guilty in April +/- a few days within RA confessing to his wife and eating his discovery doc and when the D notes a “steep decline.”

Over the summer the D begins working on the Franks, leaks occur, and at this same time KK has already filed for an appeal with SCOIN which was put on pause via an extension around the same time that the ex- d and JG began discussions about the leaks.

It wonder if KK provided information as part of his plea deal that may have shown up in discovery docs that RA received in April. Whether or not KK’s information is to be accurate is a question mark for me, depending on how much one is trusting the validity of the prosecution and the state here. It’s a theory, but I also suspect KK was working as an informant between 2016-2019 and that was why it took so long to arrest him, considering he was interviewed 10 days after the girls were found.

 

[FrostedGlass]

KAK didn't get a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to all counts.

 

[Emma Peel]

I suspect KK is still very much a part of the prosecution’s case. His arrest in 2019 coincides with “change of direction in investigation,” KK interview in Aug 2022 at GAFB showing up in RA’s discovery index, 5 charges are dropped against KK +/- a few days within RA’s arrest, KK pleads guilty in April +/- a few days within RA confessing to his wife and eating his discovery doc and when the D notes a “steep decline.”

Over the summer the D begins working on the Franks, leaks occur, and at this same time KK has already filed for an appeal with SCOIN which was put on pause via an extension around the same time that the ex- d and JG began discussions about the leaks.

It wonder if KK provided information as part of his plea deal that may have shown up in discovery docs that RA received in April. Whether or not KK’s information is to be accurate is a question mark for me, depending on how much one is trusting the validity of the prosecution and the state here. It’s a theory, but I also suspect KK was working as an informant between 2016-2019 and that was why it took so long to arrest him, considering he was interviewed 10 days after the girls were found.

One of my first thoughts as well ... until ...

In depositions in August, 2023 at least 2 LE members deposed confirmed there's zero digital/computer/phone record of RA's that contain evidence the P will use for prosecuting this crime. IIRC & IMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Oh. I meant links to news media articles/video reporting saying the leaks were the work of the prosecution and/or LE. So that was just your conspiracy theory then. Sorry, I couldn't figure out why AB would admit it was his good friend and fellow strategist MW who's responsible for the numerous leaks of defense strategy and crime scene photos. Then of course there's the Franks Memo written by the D that released even more confidential information. You're welcome to your theories but none of our theories are yet validated as fact with evidence in a court of law. MO

Thanks for clarifying that.

I don't think saying her theory is a conspiracy theory is a fair or right thing to say. I saw the point she was making and agreed with it and I don't think my agreement amounts to conspiracy. That would mean that anyone who disagrees with the other side is a conspiracy theorist and that's simply not true. She qualified the statement as her opinion but she linked to the timeline (because you asked) which was developed by other members from the court documents. I think there are additional questions in this case that need to be asked, but that does not mean asking them is conspiratorial.

jmo

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I’m still unclear how they can forbid him counsel of his choice that has offered to work pro bono?

But yet how do you allow them to stay considering their conduct? They have ignored court orders willfully, circumvented the gag order by filing an irrelevant exploration of a pagan cult theory filled with what they propose is a detailed description of the crime scene, put forth ridiculous claims in the spring motion, and allowed unauthorized people to view protected crime scene photos without supervision leading to them being stolen and leaked. They admitted to the leaks.
There has to be consequences for attorneys running wild, whether they are state appointed or not. They do not get to run the show and do what they want and ignore court orders, just because the are pro bono, or privately paid.

 

[Jurisprudence]

KAK didn't get a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to all counts.

But did he get some charges dropped and/or a reduced sentence?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Agree; the P could be referring to anyone ...

IMO, the critical thing (to my thinking) is that the P has publicly left this possibility open.
I think folks tend to overlook this.

Why would P keep the "RA/BG didn't act alone" door open if they're certain they have their man?

It's necessary (if not strategic) on the P's part, to keep that door open for another participant in this complex double murder. Why is it necessary? Let's work through that for a minute.

Fact: the P is keeping the door open for another participant.

Potential reasons:

1) Timeline. Because the P is well aware that the P's proposed timeline for these murders vs their evidence-linked timeline for RA ... leaves reasonable doubt ... that would be mitigated if the P's theory is that there is another participant (and RA won't rat on them).
(The RA timeline is too tight given the geography traveled, two victims, more than one crime scene(s) and the elaborate staging.)

2) Evidence (yet undisclosed). Does evidence suggest another (unknown) male at the scene?

3. Both 1 and 2 above.

The P theory of the case is one worthy of closer examination.
How does this potential other suspect a party to the crime; what's P's theory on this?
Apparently, it's not one that considers an Odin-mimicking staging theory.

Any guesses?

JHMO

These are all good points.
I hope we get some answers at the trial.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Agree; the P could be referring to anyone ...

IMO, the critical thing (to my thinking) is that the P has publicly left this possibility open.
I think folks tend to overlook this.

Why would P keep the "RA/BG didn't act alone" door open if they're certain they have their man?

It's necessary (if not strategic) on the P's part, to keep that door open for another participant in this complex double murder. Why is it necessary? Let's work through that for a minute.

Fact: the P is keeping the door open for another participant.

Potential reasons:

1) Timeline. Because the P is well aware that the P's proposed timeline for these murders vs their evidence-linked timeline for RA ... leaves reasonable doubt ... that would be mitigated if the P's theory is that there is another participant (and RA won't rat on them).
(The RA timeline is too tight given the geography traveled, two victims, more than one crime scene(s) and the elaborate staging.)

2) Evidence (yet undisclosed). Does evidence suggest another (unknown) male at the scene?

3. Both 1 and 2 above.

The P theory of the case is one worthy of closer examination.
How does this potential other suspect a party to the crime; what's P's theory on this?
Apparently, it's not one that considers an Odin-mimicking staging theory.

Any guesses?

JHMO

The part I made red: I thought that was his excuse for sealing the documents.
Do you remember when was the last time he mentioned the possibility other suspects?

 

[MistyWaters]

But did he get some charges dropped and/or a reduced sentence?

Nothing soft or lenient about a 40 year sentence not involving murder or SA. IMO

Kegan Kline to appeal 40-year prison sentence

Kegan Kline plans to appeal his 40-year prison sentence related to a child *advertiser censored* case. Kline filed formal notice in court Friday.

www.wishtv.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

But did he get some charges dropped and/or a reduced sentence?

They dropped 5 low-level charges and then re-evaluated some others. I don't think it was a favor to him as much as it was lack of proof.

They scrambled the charges so badly that it was really hard to tell how they began and how they ended. As best as I could tell, they grouped the charges in a way that allowed the 40 (?) year sentence.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The part I made red: I thought that was his excuse for sealing the documents.
Do you remember when was the last time he mentioned the possibility other suspects?

IIRC it was at the Press Conference when they announced RA's arrest, but I've seen an open tip line still being used on some articles.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The dropped 5 low-level charges and then re-evaluated some others. I don't think it was a favor to him as much as it was lack of proof.

They scrambled the charges so badly that it was really hard to tell how they began and how they ended. As best as I could tell, they grouped the charges in a way that allowed the 40 year sentence.

Yes, it was stated that five charges were dropped due to inconclusive evidence against KK, not as a favor.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

The part I made red: I thought that was his excuse for sealing the documents.
Do you remember when was the last time he mentioned the possibility other suspects?

He didn’t clarify what the reason was. But since the news of the arrest of RA came as a sudden shock to most, IMO he was allowing an opportunity for anyone who knew of information connecting others to RA to offer possible leads, without the benefit of knowing any investigative info. JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

The part I made red: I thought that was his excuse for sealing the documents.
Do you remember when was the last time he mentioned the possibility other suspects?

Good question, but we do know that in September - LE held interviews w/ POIs including those raised in the FM. Under oath LE couldn't answer why past POIs were not interviewed. And under oath LE commented that the D should ask their client RA who helped him.

Is that attitude during a deposition? Or was it a sincere statement?

 

[MistyWaters]

Good question, but we do know that in September - LE held interviews w/ POIs including those raised in the FM. Under oath LE couldn't answer why past POIs were not interviewed. And under oath LE commented that the D should ask their client RA who helped him.

Is that attitude during a deposition? Or was it a sincere statement?

Context is important. If D were questioning others involvement considering it’s RA who was indicted, who LE believe was responsible, then an appropriate but somewhat sarcastic retort would indeed be “D should ask their client RA who helped him”. But that’s not proof LE believes others were involved.

JMO

 

[DeDee]

Oh. I meant links to news media articles/video reporting saying the leaks were the work of the prosecution and/or LE.

Remember Baldwin said at the courthouse that journalists "need to do their job". So, I don't expect a lot of investigation into matters since the Leak Investigators will be investigating themselves.

So that was just your conspiracy theory then.

I am not the only one who sees truth in what has been included in the D Memo. But, it wouldn't matter if I were for I use my own good common sense to form my opinions. IE., I don't think the Crime Flow by GrayHughes is accurate. I don't believe the children crossed the cold creek that day. No way LG shimmied up that steep embankment to get to RLs property.

Sorry, I couldn't figure out why AB would admit it was his good friend and fellow strategist MW who's responsible for the numerous leaks of defense strategy and crime scene photos.

No need to be sorry where the truth is concerned. Baldwin was betrayed by the friendship with a dirty player, MW. The release of the photos was timed according to strategy of the P, moo, and not the D. The purpose was to get the D attorney's to stop and withdraw representation. With the help of the Judge, their mission was accomplished. I hope the City of Delphi, Carroll County and the state will address their issues with CP and whatever else has them burdened.

Then of course there's the Franks Memo written by the D that released even more confidential information.

In order to honor Abby and Libby, the truth of what they endured should be made known. If the D has the truth, then the those responsible for placing Runes at the CS should face the music of their criminal actions.

You're welcome to your theories but none of our theories are yet validated as fact with evidence in a court of law. MO

Thanks for clarifying that.

Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion.

Seems everything started spiraling when it was said in a court and then reported in the MM that RA had confessed no less than 5 times. AJMO

RA was certainly spiraling into an abyss at Westville while being tormented by his Odin guards who tased him on May 9 and May 25. The phone confessions were made in June when the Odin guards were treating RA unjustly. Maybe the truth is that he was coerced into confessing due to fear over the lives of his family were in danger if he didn't.

Oct 10 2023

The correctional officers said they stopped wearing the patches on their uniforms in September 2023 when they were asked to remove them.

Court docs: Correctional officers overseeing Richard Allen deny practicing Odinism despite wearing religious patches on uniforms

Oct 16 2023

Prison Guards’ Pagan Pride – Admissions of Flaunting Norse Symbols While Overseeing Delphi Murder Suspect​

MSN

Why were the guards wearing Odin patches on their uniforms if not to torment their captive?
MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I’m still unclear how they can forbid him counsel of his choice that has offered to work pro bono?

That was covered by The Prosecutors who had looked at the case law

Far from being a 9D chess move, it seems it was a gambit that relied on one weak authority. No idea if they are correct, but in their view the Judge has quite broad authority to dismiss counsel

 

[FrostedGlass]

Good question, but we do know that in September - LE held interviews w/ POIs including those raised in the FM. Under oath LE couldn't answer why past POIs were not interviewed. And under oath LE commented that the D should ask their client RA who helped him.

Is that attitude during a deposition? Or was it a sincere statement?

thanks. I missed that completely. I'll go back to see if I can find it.